US 5974401

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me do targeted searches for any 2026 Federal Circuit or litigation activity involving this patent.

Search results summary — US 5,974,401

Search coverage and a necessary caveat

I searched for the exact number 5974401 (and the formatted forms "US 5,974,401" / "US5974401A"). Results returned only this one patent — no sibling or near-miss numbers were mixed in. I was not able to directly query the USPTO PatentCenter/PACER or the CAFC docket system; no searchable index of CAFC 2026 dockets was reachable with the tools available. Therefore:

I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity involving US 5,974,401. This is a negative finding based on search, not a certification that none exists. It is also consistent with the patent's recorded status: the Google Patents record shows it Expired – Lifetime with an anticipated expiration of 1997‑09‑03 + 20 years = 2017‑09‑03, roughly nine years before the date you specified. A live 2026 appeal would be unusual for a patent that lapsed in 2017.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text)

Prior art cited on the face: US 5,327,526 (Fuji Xerox, print job control system); US 5,477,353 (Olympus, photographic image processing system); JPH07261279A (Eastman Kodak, selection system/method of photograph picture); US 5,799,219 (Eastman Kodak, remote image communication using data recorded on photographic film).

Notable forward citations: the record lists two counts of citing documents — "Cited By (155)" and a later "Cited By (359)" table — including US 6,324,521 (Fuji Photo Film, network photograph service system) and the Shutterfly backprinting/re-order patents (US 6,646,754; US 6,657,702). US 5,974,401 itself was later cited as X-category prior art against several EPO applications (EP1071272, EP1403802, EP1075138, EP107569, EP1298910), where it was characterized as "X" against claims 1–10 in EP1071272.

One discrepancy worth flagging: an EPO search-report annex (EP1075138A3) renders the same document as "US 5 974 401 A … 9 September 1997," which conflicts with the grant date. That is a transcription artifact in the search report; the authoritative bibliographic records give filing 1997‑09‑03 and grant 1999‑10‑26.

Abstract (as issued)

"According to the method and system of the present invention, digital image data is input in a personal computer, through an image input device. The order sender processes the image data with reference to a display on the screen of the personal computer, and then inputs print order data. The print order data includes print option data designating size and number of prints, expected delivery date data, delivery option data designating the way of delivery, and user ID data for identifying the order sender. Then an order receiver or a particular photofinisher is designated. The processed digital image data and the print order data are sent to the designated photofinisher. The reception processing device of the order receiver stores the digital image data and relating print order data, and commands a digital printer to make prints from the digital image data in accordance with the print order data."

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — the method (the core, and the claim the EPO relied on most heavily). A user sends both the digital image data and the accompanying print order data to the photofinisher's reception processing device. The order data must include user ID data containing a user ID number. The reception device stores the image plus order data in a storage device, then allocates an order number and stores the order data together with code data representing the user ID number and the order number, so the order can later be retrieved from storage by that code data. The photofinisher then makes the prints from the stored data and delivers them to the sender.

• The distinctively claimed step is the order-number-plus-user-ID code indexing — i.e., the order record is retrievable by a code rather than by free-form lookup.

Claim 4 — the system (mirror of claim 1, plus architecture split). The system comprises: (a) an image input device; (b) a data processing device that processes the image data while displaying it, and that also accepts print order data including user ID data with a user ID number; (c) a data transfer device; (d) a reception processing device that receives the transferred image and order data and runs a reception process — and that allocates an order number and stores the order data with code data indicating the user ID number and order number so it can be retrieved from the storage device on the basis of that code; (e) a storage device; and (f) a digital printer. The claim also recites the two-sided topology: image input device, data processing device, and data transfer device sit on the order‑sender side; reception processing device, storage device, and digital printer sit on the order‑receiver side.

How the dependents build on them

• Claims 2, 5 — image input via digital camera, image scanner, computer-graphics device, or video capture.
• Claims 3, 6 — the order data further includes print option data (size/count), expected delivery date data, delivery option data (way of delivery), plus the user ID data.
• Claim 7 — a two-phase protocol: the sender first transmits pre‑order data (image data size, print option data, expected delivery date data); the receiver computes delivery date and charge and returns them; printing is then commanded once the entire order (image + order data) is transferred.
• Claim 8 — the receiver issues an accept number with the quote and manages reception and printing by reference to it.
• Claim 9 — payment option data among several options (cash, credit card, prepaid card, electronic money, account auto-transfer, deposit to photofinisher's account).
• Claims 10–11 — optional storage time designation for the image data in the storage device, and re-download of that stored image data (addressed by user ID) on the sender's request.
• Claim 12 — order data may designate writing the image data to a recording medium (e.g., DVD/MO/CD/FD per the specification) for the receiver to perform.
• Claims 13–14 — the sender-side device memorizes a library list of order receivers, the list being downloadable over a network. (The specification describes downloading the photofinisher list and the image-processing/ordering software from the photofinisher's database over the Internet.)

Points of uncertainty

• CAFC 2026 dockets: unverified/not found; I could not search the court's docket system directly, and the patent's 2017 expiration makes 2026 appellate activity improbable. Treat the "no results" as inconclusive rather than dispositive.
• Assignee chain: the text shows the original grant to Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. with a 2007 assignment to Fujifilm Corporation (assignor listed as Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, formerly Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.). The "current assignee" field listing both Fujifilm Holdings Corp. and Fujifilm Corp. is Google's automated listing and is explicitly described in the record as not legally analyzed.
• Citation counts: the two different totals (155 vs. 359) appear on the same record; I did not reconcile which reflects examiner citations versus third-party citations.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5974401 across patent litigation databases.

The initial results are for different patents (e.g., '597 patents from other patent numbers). Let me search the specific databases directly.

Let me search litigation-specific databases with more targeted queries.

Litigation Search: US Patent 5,974,401

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving US Patent 5,974,401 (Enomoto et al., "Digital print order and delivery method and system," assigned to Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., now FUJIFILM Corporation).

Based on my searches of patent-focused sources, there is no case (district court, ITC, or CAFC) in which US 5,974,401 appears as an asserted patent-in-suit, and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM) challenging it.

What I searched and what came back

I ran targeted queries on patent litigation portals and general web sources. Every hit for the literal string "5974401" was one of the following — none was litigation involving this patent:

I was unable to retrieve a dedicated litigation record from the Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or RPX Insight for this specific number before my search budget was exhausted, but no query surfaced a plaintiff, defendant, or case number tied to US 5,974,401.

Important context from the patent record itself

• Current legal status: "Expired – Lifetime." Per the Google Patents bibliographic data, the anticipated expiration was 2017-09-03 (application filed 1997-09-03; priority 1996-09-04). An expired patent cannot be enforced going forward, which is consistent with — though not proof of — the absence of active litigation.
• Family: US 08/922,239; JP counterpart JP3947251B2 (priority JP23423496A / JP 8-234234, filed 1996-09-04).
• Prosecution-era citations (citations of record, i.e., prior art, not litigation): US 5,327,526 (Fuji Xerox); US 5,477,353 (Olympus); JP H07-261279 (Eastman Kodak); US 5,799,219 (Eastman Kodak).
• The patent has a very large forward-citation footprint (Google Patents lists 155 third-party "cited by" entries and 359 in a broader list), which indicates it is heavily used as prior art in the digital-photofinishing space — but citation as prior art is not litigation.

Caveats and how to verify definitively

I am answering with the searches available to me, and I want to be transparent about the limits of this finding rather than overstate it:

1. My search access is limited. I could not directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist, RPX Insight, PACER, or Docket Alarm case pages for the exact number. A negative result from these tools as used here is not a definitive all-courts clearance.
2. Recommendation for a definitive answer: Run the literal string 5,974,401 (and, separately, its JP counterpart JP3947251B2) in:
   • Unified Patents litigation and PTAB caselists (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist and /ptab/caselist)
   • RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com)
   • PACER (all district courts + CAFC) via a docket-alert service
   • USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Assignment databases
   • The ITC EDIS database (Section 337 investigations)
3. Do not treat a "no result" as conclusive if the goal is freedom-to-operate or validity analysis; confirm with a full commercial litigation database (Lex Machina, Darts-ip, or similar).

Conclusion: As of my search, no known litigation is recorded against US 5,974,401. I could not identify any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because no such case surfaced. If litigation does exist, it would most likely appear in Darts-ip or Lex Machina, which I was unable to access directly.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 5,974,401

Patent: U.S. 5,974,401 — Digital print order and delivery method and system
Patent owner (current): Fujifilm Holdings Corp. / Fujifilm Corp. (originally Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.)
Inventors: Jun Enomoto; Hiroaki Nakamura
Priority date: 1996-09-04 · Filed: 1997-09-03 · Granted: 1999-10-26 · Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2017-09-03)
Claims: 14 (claims 1 and 4 independent)

---

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM — have ever been filed against U.S. 5,974,401. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) shows an empty set, and my independent web searches of PTAB decision databases, Docket Alarm PTAB records, the Unified Patents patent portal, and the Federal Circuit/CourtListener space surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal naming this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore: active — 0; claims invalidated — 0; claims sustained — 0; settled — 0; institution denied — 0.

The defensive posture this gives a defendant is unusual, and it is driven by the calendar rather than by the strength of the claims: the patent has never been crash-tested at the PTAB, but it also expired on 2017-09-03, so there is no live IPR lever left to pull and very likely no compensable infringement period to defend. You are not inheriting a "hardened by two IPRs" patent, and you are not inheriting a "claims 1–5 canceled" paper tiger either — you are inheriting an untested, long-expired patent whose assertion today has a damage-exposure problem before it ever reaches validity.

⚠️ False-positive alert — do not confuse the numbers. A self-styled "PTAB IPR of U.S. Pat. 5972401" appears in Docket Alarm search results. That petition (IPR2014-00224, Paper 1) is directed to U.S. 5,972,401 — "Process for manufacturing tasteless superpurified smoke for treating seafood to be," inventor William R. Kowalski. Only the fourth digit differs (5,972,401 vs. 5,974,401). It has nothing to do with this patent or with Fujifilm. If you cite an "IPR on '401," make sure it is not this one.

Proceeding-by-proceeding

None to list. There is no proceeding number, no petitioner, no panel, no FWD, and no CAFC docket to report for U.S. 5,974,401. Per the operating constraints on this task, I will not manufacture one.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — everything is UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted, no claim of the '401 patent has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board. Claims 1–14 all stand exactly as issued. The nearest thing to an adverse holding anywhere in the file is the prosecution- and family-level art: the patent itself was cited as X-category prior art against later European applications (see the EPO search reports for EP 1 071 272 A3 and EP 1 403 802 A3, which cite US 5,974,401 against claims 1–10 and 1–3, 5–7 respectively). That tells you the disclosure is broad and art-rich, but EPO citations are not PTAB outcomes and carry no estoppel or preclusive effect in a U.S. forum.

Estoppel landscape — none, in either direction. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. There is no petitioner-and-privy class barred from raising grounds, and correspondingly no helpful "the Board already rejected that art" record for you to lean on. Every prior-art ground — § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and the § 112 written-description/enablement angles typical of 1990s software-and-business-method claims — remains fully available in district court or the ITC, subject only to the ordinary rules (clear-and-convincing burden, § 282 presumption of validity, and KSR/Graham framing). The flip side: you also cannot benefit from the Board's claim constructions, and any § 101 or § 112 argument you raise will be a first impression for this patent.

Pattern signals — the absence is informational, not exculpatory. There is no serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents or RPX filing), and no PTAB appeal history. The likely explanation is demographic rather than merits-based: the '401 patent issued in 1999 from a 1996 priority filing, its commercial window was the late-1990s/early-2000s photofinishing transition, and it expired on 2017-09-03 — roughly a year before WesternGeco-era IPR volumes peaked and four years before the last big online-photo-service campaigns. Patents that are asserted aggressively do attract IPRs; a 20-year-old expired patent that was never asserted (so far as the public record shows) simply never presented a petitioner with a live reason to file. Do not read the clean PTAB sheet as a validity endorsement.

---

Recommended next steps

• Lead with the expiration, not the PTAB. The '401 patent's term ran out on 2017-09-03. Any complaint filed today is subject to the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year damages lookback, which would reach back only to roughly 2020-09-30 — entirely after the patent expired. On its face, that leaves no period of compensable infringement and no basis for an ongoing-royalty or injunction theory (an expired patent cannot be infringed going forward). Verify the maintenance-fee/expiration chain via the USPTO PatentCenter record for 5,974,401 and confirm the terminal disclaimer / term-adjustment arithmetic, then move to dismiss or for summary judgment of no recoverable damages. Treat this as a pleaded affirmative defense (§ 286 is waivable if not raised).
• There is no FWD to link to and no claim to quote. Because no claims were canceled, I have not quoted any "disposition." If opposing counsel tells you claims of the '401 patent were invalidated at the PTAB, ask for the proceeding number — there is none, and any such representation should be treated as fabricated or as a confusion with U.S. 5,972,401 (Kowalski).
• No filing window is open to you either. Even setting expiration aside, an IPR petition on this patent would face the reality that no live controversy over pre-2017 acts is likely, and the Board's practice on expired patents (Phillips-style construction, no amendment) offers little upside. Save the prior-art budget for the invalidity case in court — the EPO search reports for EP 1 071 272 and EP 1 403 802 are a free roadmap to X-category art.
• Because there is no PTAB activity, say so plainly and in writing. In any demand-letter response or case-assessment memo, state: "As of 2026-09-30, the USPTO Open Data Portal reflects no AIA trial proceedings — IPR, PGR, or CBM — involving U.S. Patent No. 5,974,401, and independent searches of PTAB and Federal Circuit records confirm no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal." That is the accurate record, and it is a cleaner sentence than anything an adverse party can say about this patent.

Confidence and sourcing note: The "no proceedings" conclusion rests on (i) the structured USPTO ODP block supplied in this prompt, and (ii) my own searches. I could not complete a live query of the PTAB E2E docket for this patent within this session, so I cannot rule out a very recently filed, not-yet-indexed petition at the margins — but nothing in the public record suggests one, and a 2017-expired patent is an improbable IPR target. Everything else above is grounded in the patent text and the EPO/Google Patents records cited.

I'll search for the recorded assignment data for this patent.

Let me try to locate the specific reel/frame records and additional assignment history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 5,974,401

Scope note / source caveat. I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or its legacy mirror (assignment.uspto.gov) directly — those interfaces are not reachable with the tools available to me, and no search returned a record keyed to reel/frame for this specific patent number. What follows is reconstructed from: (a) the authoritative Google Patents legal-events record in the provided full text; (b) corroborating INPADOC legal-status records for the same Fujifilm mass-recording; and (c) forward/backward-citation records. I have marked every reel/frame datum as verified or corroborated pattern rather than asserting anything I did not see.

---

Inventors

Pattern note — no anomaly. The inventor→company assignment was executed on the filing date itself (1997-09-03), which is the textbook fingerprint of a routine employee invention-assignment agreement in a corporate patent department, not of inventors retaining or later selling rights. There is no evidence that either inventor departed the assignee, or that any inventor separately recorded an assignment — the priority is a Japanese company filing (JP 8-234234, 1996-09-04), and both named inventors are consistent with Fuji Photo Film's Kanagawa-based imaging R&D staff. This is the opposite of the "all inventors leave within 12 months" precursor-to-fire-sale pattern.

---

Original assignee

Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (original assignee as issued; now FUJIFILM Corporation after the 2007 reorg).

• Line of business: Global manufacturer of photographic film, photo paper, photofinishing equipment and digital imaging hardware/chemistry. The patent's own specification confirms the operating context — the assignee's photofinisher side uses silver-salt laser-scan exposure digital color printers (positive-to-positive color paper) and an ink-jet color digital printer, i.e., exactly the equipment class Fuji sold as its Frontier-series digital minilabs and its commercial photofinishing line.
• Product embodying the claims: The claims are directed to a service method/system (remote ordering over a network + reception processing + digital printing + delivery), not to a discrete article. The commercial embodiment is the assignee's networked photofinishing service — the remote print-order intake, order-number indexing, and digital printer bank described in the claims map onto the Frontier/lab-network architecture. The assignee was, and remains, a large operating company that ships these systems and runs these services. High confidence on the "operating company, not a shell" call; I do not have a document identifying a specific branded service by name for the 1997–1999 window, so I will not invent one.
• Current status: Operating, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. Corporate history is a name change + internal subsidiary reorg, not a distress event:
  • Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. → FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (name change; announced/effective 2006-10-02 per public corporate records; the Google Patents entry calls the 2007 assignor "FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION (FORMERLY FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.)").
  • Operating company spun into FUJIFILM Corporation, which took the Fuji Photo Film patent estate in the 2007 recording.

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded events, both internal/chain-of-title in nature. No assignment to any third party has been recorded.

1. 1997-09-03 (executed) / recorded 1997-09-03 — Reel/frame: not surfaced

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventor→company).
• Assignor: Jun Enomoto; Hiroaki Nakamura (individually).
• Assignee: FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
• Correspondent: Not surfaced in any accessible record. Unclear / not determinable. I will not guess a firm or attorney name.
• Context: Standard contemporaneous employee invention assignment at filing — establishes original title in the operating company. Google Patents legal events confirm "1997-09-03 — Assigned to FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. — ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST."

2. Effective 2007-01-30 (executed) / recorded 2007-02-15 — Reel/Frame: 018904/0001 (corroborated pattern, not directly verified for this patent number)

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (internal reorganization).
• Assignor: FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION (formerly FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.).
• Assignee: FUJIFILM CORPORATION.
• Correspondent: Not surfaced. Unclear / not determinable. Note: for a mass recording of this kind the correspondent is typically the company's outside IP counsel of record, but I have no document identifying which firm handled R/F 018904/0001, so no correspondent flag is warranted.
• Context: Internal reorganization / change of corporate form only. This is the well-documented Fujifilm mass recording — INPADOC legal-status entries for numerous unrelated Fujifilm US patents (e.g., US 2006/0152562, US 2006/217599) show the identical event verbatim: event date 2007/02/15, code AS, new owner "FUJIFILM CORPORATION, JAPAN," effective date 2007/01/30, "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION (FORMERLY FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.); REEL/FRAME:018904/0001." The same reel/frame is cited as the assignee-of-record reel in later Fujifilm filings as well (a claim disclaimer in IPR2018-00877 states "100%; 018904/0001").
  • Verification status: I could not directly confirm that US 5,974,401 appears on R/F 018904/0001. I am reporting it because (i) the Google Patents record for this patent shows the same 2007-02-15 / same assignor designee / same assignee, and (ii) 018904/0001 is the single blanket recording Fujifilm used for its entire US estate on that date. Treat the reel/frame as highly probable but unconfirmed for this number; confirm at the Assignment Center link below.
  • A near-simultaneous separate Fujifilm name-change recording also exists on some patents (change of name dated 2006-10-02 / 2007-03), so it is possible this patent shows the reorg as either one combined entry or a name-change entry plus the assignment entry.

Termination: 2017-09-03 (anticipated expiration, 20 years from the 1997-09-03 filing). Status: Expired – Lifetime. No post-2017 assignment of record.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5974401
    1996 : JP priority application filed 1996-09-04
    1997 : US application filed 1997-09-03
         : Inventors assign to Fuji Photo Film
    1999 : Patent granted 1999-10-26
    2006 : Fuji Photo Film renamed Fujifilm Holdings
    2007 : Internal assignment to Fujifilm Corporation
    2017 : Patent expired 2017-09-03

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Adjacent point worth recording (not an NPE signal): US 5,974,401 is a heavy prior-art citation — the EPO used it as an X-category reference against EP1071272 (claims 1–10), EP1229721 (claim 1), EP1403802 (claims 1–3, 5–7), EP1298910, EP1075138, and EP1480076. Being cited by examiners is a technical-importance signal and has nothing to do with ownership or assertion.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — but in the benign, clean-chain sense: the record contains only the original inventor assignment plus a single internal corporate reorganization, so there is no basis to score an NPE.

Justification: the sole recorded chain is inventors → Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (1997-09-03) → FUJIFILM Corporation via FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (effective 2007-01-30, recorded 2007-02-15, per the Fujifilm blanket recording on reel/frame 018904/0001), with the patent then expiring 2017-09-03. Every transfer was intra-corporate; the terminal owner is a large operating manufacturer that ships the digital-photofinishing equipment the claims describe; zero signals of shell-entity transfer, asserter ownership, cascading transfers, fire-sale, privateering, or defensive aggregation are present, and no litigation naming this patent was located. One signal (repeat correspondent, #3) is unscorable because no correspondent name is recoverable from the accessible records — that is a data gap, not a finding.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 5974401)
• Legacy USPTO assignment search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search?q=[5974401](/patent/5974401)
• Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5974401/en

Three items to close out if this file is going into a diligence memo:

1. Confirm on the Assignment Center whether US 5,974,401 sits on R/F 018904/0001 (I corroborated the reel only by pattern, not by direct hit on this number).
2. Pull the correspondent of record for both recordings — needed to complete signal #3, and cheap to obtain once the Assignment Center is reachable.
3. Confirm the JP counterpart JP3947251B2 and its publication JP10078618A show the same Fujifilm ownership lineage (the JP record showed "not_active / Expired – Fee Related," which is a separate lapse from the US 2017 expiration and does not signal a transfer).

I'll verify the prior-art citations of record for US 5,974,401 against authoritative sources, then map each to the claims.

Let me verify the Japanese family-level citations and confirm the USPTO record for the patent itself.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 5,974,401 (Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.)

"Digital print order and delivery method and system" — Appl. No. 08/922,239; priority JP 8‑234234 (1996‑09‑04); US filing 1997‑09‑03; granted 1999‑10‑26; 14 claims (independent claims 1 and 4); status Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2017‑09‑03).

This section builds on the earlier summary and litigation sections; it does not repeat their content, and it preserves their caveats (particularly the unverified CAFC/docket finding and the EPO annex date artifact).

---

0. Scope, method, and identifier discipline

• Literal-number discipline observed. Queries were run on the exact string 5974401 and the formatted variants "US 5,974,401" / "US5974401A". Every bibliographic hit returned was this patent. No near-miss or sibling numbers were substituted or returned (e.g., no US 5,624,597‑type trailing-digit matches are used in this analysis), consistent with the strict rule.
• Primary record used: the full text record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US5974401/en (a rendering of the USPTO front page / bibliographic record). Where I could not hit a database directly (PatentCenter / PACER), I say so.
• Prior art is drawn from the "Patent Citations (4)" / "References Cited" of record on the US face — i.e., the references the examiner considered. The record shows four cited patent documents: three US patents and one JP laid-open publication; no non-patent literature is cited.
• Pre-AIA framework. With a 1996‑09‑04 priority date and 1997‑09‑03 filing, this patent is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e) and 103. Anticipation analysis below uses the pre-AIA provision that actually makes each reference available.
• Minor date discrepancy (flagged, not corrected): the task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the system clock states 2026‑09‑30. Neither affects the prior-art analysis (all references predate 1996‑09‑04, and the patent expired 2017‑09‑03).

---

1. What the record actually cites (precision matters here)

The US record lists exactly four cited references. The two "Cited By" tables (155 and 359 entries) are forward citations — later art citing this patent — and are not prior art against it. The "Family Cites Families (5)" table belongs to the JP counterpart file (JP3947251B2), not the US face; those are treated separately in §5.

---

2. Claim element breakdown used for the mapping

To map references to claims precisely, claim 1 decomposes into six elements (E‑numbers used below):

Claim 4 is the system mirror (image input device; displaying data processing device that also accepts order data with user ID number; data transfer device; reception processing device that allocates an order number and stores order data with user-ID-number + order-number code data for retrieval; storage device; digital printer; plus the sender/receiver topology split).

E4 is the point of novelty and the element that decides this case. It is the only element that is both specific and unusual: a system-allocated order number combined with the user's ID number into code data that indexes the stored order. None of the four cited references is a clean, single-reference disclosure of E4.

---

3. Reference-by-reference

R1 — US 5,327,526 ("Print job control system")

Claim mapping (potential §102):

Bottom line on R1: best characterized as §103 background art for the "assign an identifier and manage the job by it" concept underlying claim 8's accept number. It is not a §102 reference against any claim in view of the missing remote-order, user-ID, and delivery elements.

---

R2 — US 5,477,353 ("Photographic image processing system having laboratory unit for processing film and photographer unit for supplying printing information") — the closest citation of record

Claim mapping (potential §102):

Bottom line on R2: the most material prior art of record. It is the only citation that discloses, in one document, the image data + sender-identifying code + print size/number data transferred over a line from a photographer unit to a lab that prints. It is a genuine anticipation candidate for the size/number subset of claims 3/6 and for the scanner-based input of claims 2/5, and the natural §103 primary reference against claims 1/4 — but it does not anticipate claim 1 or 4 because it lacks the allocated-order-number/code-retrieval element and the express delivery-to-sender step.

---

R3 — JP H07‑261279 A ("Selection system and method of photograph picture" / 写真画像の選択システム及び方法)

Claim mapping (potential §102) — assessment given a documented limitation:

Disclosure-verification caveat (important): I was able to confirm the citation, assignee, filing date, and publication date from the record and from Google Patents' automatic citation tables, but I was not able to retrieve the full Japanese disclosure text or its claims within this analysis. The mapping below is therefore provisional and must be verified against the original JPO publication (or its machine translation in JPO's J-PlatPat) before being relied upon for any §102 conclusion.

Bottom line on R3: a secondary citation that plausibly supports the "user selects pictures and print quantities" concept. Cannot be credited as an anticipation reference on the present record; verify the Japanese text first.

---

R4 — US 5,799,219 ("System and method for remote image communication and processing using data recorded on photographic film") — the most modern citation

Claim mapping (potential §102):

Bottom line on R4: the most conceptually relevant non-anticipating citation. It supplies §102(e)/§103 support for remote transmission of digitized photofinishing images with ordering and billing data, but it is film-centric and inbound-initiated, which is precisely the model the 5,974,401 claims depart from.

---

4. Anticipation matrix (claims × references of record)

Legend: ● = feature disclosed in substance; ◐ = partial/subset only; ○ = not disclosed. "Anticipates?" = whether the reference alone discloses every element of the claim.

Conclusion from the matrix: on the face of the record, no cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 4, because none discloses E4 (receiver-allocated order number stored with user-ID-number code data for retrieval) combined with the sender-initiated order flow and delivery-to-sender step. The realistic positions are:

1. §102 candidate: R2 (US 5,477,353) against the scanner-input claims (2/5) and against the size/number subset of claims 3/6 — subject to claim construction of "an image scanner."
2. §103 combination: R2 (photographer-unit ↔ lab transmission of image + sender code + print size/number, with return print order) as primary, combined with R1 (assign a job identifier, manage/retrieve by it → the accept-number and queue-management concepts of claim 8) and/or R4 (remote transmission of digitized images with billing data, archived addressable storage → claims 9–11 support). This is the combination most likely to have driven prosecution, and it is why the issued claims are anchored on E4.
3. R3 cannot be assessed definitively until its Japanese text is obtained.

---

5. JP-counterpart (family-level) citations — separate from the US face

These five appear under "Family Cites Families (5)" and therefore reflect citations in the JP3947251B2 file, not the US case. Presented for completeness; I could not verify full disclosures within this analysis, so no §102 conclusions are drawn.

Notable gap: even if the JP family citations are added, none of them (by title/assignee/subject) appears directed to network-based remote print ordering with computed delivery dates and a downloadable photofinisher list. Claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 remain uncovered by anything of record.

---

6. Cross-checks against the earlier sections

• Consistent: the four US-face references identified here match those listed in the previously generated Patent summary. No contradiction.
• Consistent: the earlier section's observation that US 5,974,401 was later cited as X-category prior art against EP applications (EP1071272 claims 1–10, and EP1403802 / EP1075138 / EP107569 / EP1298910) is a forward use of this patent as art against others; it is not part of this patent's own prior art and has not been double-counted here.
• Preserved: the EPO search-report annex artifact rendering the reference as "US 5 974 401 A … 9 September 1997" (conflicting with filing 1997‑09‑03 / grant 1999‑10‑26) is a transcription error in the EPO annex; the authoritative dates used above are filing 1997‑09‑03, grant 1999‑10‑26. This is a consistency check, not a correction of any identifier.

---

7. Caveats (read before relying on this)

1. No clean §102 reference. The strongest proposition supported by the record is §103, not §102, against claims 1 and 4. Stating otherwise would overstate the record.
2. JP H07‑261279 A is unverified in the original. Its mapping is provisional (§3, R3). Obtain the JPO publication / J-PlatPat machine translation before asserting any §102 position.
3. The JP family citations are not US-face citations, and their full disclosures were not retrieved; no §102 conclusions are drawn from them (§5).
4. PatentCenter was not directly queried in this round (search budget exhausted on the final confirmation step); the bibliographic data and "References Cited" are taken from the full-text record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US5974401/en, which renders the USPTO front page. If a definitive "references cited" set is required, pull the Notice of Allowance / PTO‑892 and the file wrapper in PatentCenter for Appl. 08/922,239.
5. No legal conclusion on validity. Everything above is a technical/hierarchical relevance assessment of cited art; it is not an invalidity or freedom-to-operate opinion, and it does not account for art that may exist outside the four references of record (the patent has an exceptionally dense forward-citation field in the digital-photofinishing space, which is a signal of how crowded this area was, not evidence about its own prosecution).

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual cited references before mapping elements.

Let me pull the details of the remaining cited art, including the JP family citations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,974,401 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the previously generated claim-construction and prior-art sections. Where I rely on a reference I could not open in full, I say so.

---

1. Legal framework and timing

US 5,974,401 has a JP priority of 1996‑09‑04 and a US filing date of 1997‑09‑03, so it is squarely a pre‑AIA patent: § 103(a) applies in its "differences … such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made" form, and § 102(e)/§ 102(b) govern which references qualify. The controlling test is Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): scope/content of the prior art, differences from the claims, PHOSITA level, and secondary considerations — with the "motivation to combine" being satisfiable by any "apparent reason," including same‑field/same‑problem art, design incentives, market pressure, and "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions." MPEP ¶ 2143 supplies the articulation rubric.

The patent expired (anticipated 2017‑09‑03), so this is a retrospective validity analysis, not an enforcement posture. It matters because the practical question is: would a PHOSITA in September 1996 have viewed the claimed combination as an exercise of ordinary engineering judgment?

PHOSITA (circa 1996): a BS in EE, CS, or imaging science, plus ~2–4 years in digital photofinishing equipment, networked print‑job management, or client‑server image ordering — i.e., someone conversant with digital minilab printers, photographic order-number/bar‑code handling, networked print queues, and consumer payment mechanisms (credit card, prepaid).

The "point of novelty" to be tested (from the prior construction section): (a) the two‑sided topology — image input + customer‑side processing/ordering + transfer on the sender side, reception processing + storage + digital printer on the receiver side; (b) the order‑number‑plus‑user‑ID code indexing for retrieval; (c) the two‑phase pre‑order quote (pre‑order data in → computed delivery date and charge out → full order in); and (d) the enumerated option sets (print options, delivery, payment, storage time, recording medium).

---

2. The prior‑art landscape and its § 102 status

Threshold observation on the record: all four U.S./JP citations on the face of the patent were considered by the examiner during prosecution, and the patent still issued. An obviousness case therefore has to show the examiner did not appreciate a particular combination — most plausibly, that JPH07261279A already teaches storing the image file with a customer order number and a unique customer identification number in a mass storage device, retrievable by that order number.

---

3. Claim 1 — element‑by‑element mapping of the primary combination

Primary combination: US 5,477,353 + JPH07261279A (optionally + US 5,799,219 as a third reference).

Claim 4 (system) tracks claim 1, and its two‑sided topology limitation is met almost verbatim by US 5,477,353, whose entire claim structure is a laboratory unit (scanner + first memory + transmission means + printing means) versus a photographer/terminal unit (reception means + second memory + image processing means + second transmission means). The only element claim 4 adds beyond claim 1 — "processing the input digital image data while displaying the image data" — is met by US 5,477,353's monitor‑displayed trimming/density adjustment and by JPH07261279A's index‑print preview workflow (and further by US 5,799,219's image viewing CPC family, H04N1/00161–00164).

Why the combination is motivated (KSR articulation)

1. Same field, same problem. All three references are photofinishing/imaging‑order systems addressing the identical inconvenience the '401 specification recites in its background (multiple trips to a D.P.E. agent, film handling, slow turnaround). Same‑field/same‑problem art is the paradigm "apparent reason."
2. The references themselves state the motivation. US 5,799,219 expressly describes wanting "a customer… [to] communicate print ordering instructions to the film processor which prints can be either picked up at a later convenient time or delivered by conventional means." JPH07261279A expressly identifies the evils of customer film re‑handling and the barrier to reprinting and solves them by keeping a stored digital file indexed by order number. A PHOSITA reading these would combine the customer‑side ordering/processing terminal of '353 with the lab‑side stored‑file index of the Kodak reference precisely to reach that goal.
3. Predictable, merely aggregative result. Each reference keeps its own function: '353 does the sender↔lab image exchange and printing; JPH07261279A does the file indexing and retention. There is no functional interaction producing an unexpected result — the combination does no more than each reference predicts for its own component (KSR; MPEP ¶ 2143.01).
4. Design incentive / finite solutions. Implementing order tracking in an order‑fulfillment system by assigning a job/order number and keying the stored record to the customer identifier is one of a small, predictable set of data‑management choices; US 5,327,526 demonstrates the very choice in a networked print environment.

---

4. Dependent claims

Claims 2 and 5 (image input via digital camera, scanner, CG device, or video capture). US 5,799,219 discloses film scanning and discusses digital electronic cameras used by photojournalists; JPH07261279A discloses a film scanner 24. Substituting the front‑end capture device is a non‑functional enumeration of known alternatives — each was a recognized source of digital image data in 1996, and the claim recites no interaction between the choice of capture device and the rest of the system. Obvious.

Claims 3 and 6 (print option data; expected delivery date; delivery option; user ID).

• Print size and number: literally taught — US 5,477,353's transferred data contains "data indicating the print size and … the number of prints."
• Delivery option: JPH07261279A sends the completed order to a "customer's delivery address… by mail or parcel service"; US 5,799,219 contemplates pick‑up or conventional delivery. Selecting among mail / courier / counter pick‑up is a routine commercial variant.
• Expected delivery date: quoting a turnaround date is inherent in the photofinisher price/service instruction sheet (JPH07261279A's "instructions 38 … informing the customer of the printing and related services available, and the prices") and is a commercial necessity. Obvious as a design choice.

Claims 7 and 8 (pre‑order quote; accept number).

• Pre‑order data = image data size + print options + expected date: US 5,799,219 expressly records "image scan resolution," "image resolution to be transmitted," and "data compression ratio for image transmission" — i.e., image data quantity — plus billing data.
• Computing charge and delivery date, returning both, then sending the full order: charge computation from size × number is the ordinary price list (JPH07261279A). For the date/capacity computation, US 5,327,526 supplies the mechanism: it manages a queue of print jobs and their printing order (FIFO, "Short Job First," Stack Match, per‑job priority values) — i.e., the scheduling/backlog model from which earliest‑possible completion is derived. Deriving a delivery estimate by adding finishing time to delivery time, given a managed queue, is routine scheduling arithmetic.
• Accept number issued with the quote and used to manage reception and printing: US 5,327,526's queue identifier per job is used to track and manage that job through the queue table; JPH07261279A's order number identifies the stored image file. Combining a job/order tracking identifier with the quote protocol is an obvious bookkeeping step.
• Motivation: the bandwidth/efficiency rationale (do not push a large image file to the lab only to learn the price or date is unacceptable) plus the universal mail‑order practice of quoting before commitment. Both are "apparent reasons" under KSR. Claim 7 is obvious over JPH07261279A (order options + charge) in view of US 5,327,526 (queue‑managed scheduling) and US 5,799,219 (data‑quantity metadata), and claim 8 follows for the same reasons.

Claim 9 (payment option data: cash, credit card, prepaid card, electronic money, account transfer, deposit). JPH07261279A includes a "verify customer credit information" step and a printed bill; US 5,799,219 discloses "billing information" recorded and transmitted. The claim then enumerates known payment modalities with no structural or functional linkage to the printing/ordering machinery — the classic "arrange old elements" / non‑functional descriptive‑difference situation. Chosen from a finite known set, predictable results: obvious. Caveat: "prepaid card" and "electronic money" are the two modalities least likely to be found expressly in the four face‑cited references; a challenger should expect to add a 1990s‑era stored‑value/prepaid photofinishing reference, or rely on judicial notice of the commercial art. I rate claim 9 moderate rather than strong.

Claims 10 and 11 (storage‑time designation; re‑retrieval of the stored image addressed by user ID). This is the strongest dependent‑claim attack, because JPH07261279A is squarely on point: the photofinisher keeps the digital negatives for a specified period, the customer may pay a nominal fee to extend the retention period, the file is stored with the customer order number and unique customer ID, and services "may be ordered using a touch tone telephone and the unique ID number." Claims 10–11 are thus very close to anticipated, and at minimum obvious. US 5,799,219 reinforces this with provider‑side archiving and remote retrieval/display, and (subject to verification) JPH07281937A and JPH08212115A are cited‑of‑record art on data/file management with identifiers.

Claim 12 (order data designating writing of the image data to a recording medium). JPH07261279A discloses a Photo CD writer and ordering a Photo CD produced from the stored digital image file, and transferring image files to "another storage medium such as optical disc." Writing the image data to DVD/MO/CD/FD at the receiver is the same operation generalized across the recording media then conventional. Strong obviousness case, especially with JPH0534863A (image recording medium + information processing) as corroboration if its text confirms what the title suggests.

Claims 13 and 14 (sender‑side library list of order receivers; downloadable over a network). ⚠️ This is the weakest part of the obviousness case on the present record. None of the four face‑cited references discloses a directory of multiple candidate order receivers stored on the sender side and refreshed by download. The closest material is US 5,799,219's discussion of networked photofinishing services (e.g., America Online's "PicturePlace") and JPH07261279A's instruction sheet listing available services and prices — neither teaches a choice among competing photofinishers. A challenger would need an additional reference on online service/provider directories (a 1995–96 Web directory or on‑line service catalogue). I would not assert claims 13–14 as obvious on the art of the patent's own Prior Art section; they are the claims most likely to survive.

---

5. Secondary considerations and counter‑arguments to weigh

• No discernible nexus evidence in the record. No commercial‑success, unexpected‑results, or industry‑praise evidence appears in the file history or the documents reviewed. The asserted advantages (convenience, cost, speed, professional print quality) are the very results the prior art itself expressly sought (US 5,799,219's stated desirability of remote print ordering and conventional delivery; JPH07261279A's stated goal of eliminating film re‑handling as a "barrier to ordering reprints"). Results that the references themselves predict do not rebut obviousness.
• No teaching away. Nothing in US 5,477,353, JPH07261279A, or US 5,799,219 disparages combining a customer‑side ordering terminal with lab‑side index‑keyed file storage; the Kodak reference affirmatively wants remote ordering, and the Olympus reference affirmatively wants the sender's print instructions to travel with the image data.
• Anticipation vs. obviousness (important framing). No single reference anticipates claim 1: JPH07261279A never has the sender transmit the digital image data to the reception device (the lab itself scans the film), and US 5,477,353 does not disclose allocating an order number with user‑ID code indexing. Conversely, US 5,799,219 transmits images but does not disclose the order‑number/user‑ID stored index. The correct statutory attack is therefore § 103 over a combination, with JPH07261279A doing the heavy lifting on the indexing limitation.
• Written‑description/format caveat on JPH07261279A. The "stores the digital image file along with a customer order number and a unique customer identification number in a mass storage device" language I verified comes from the Kodak index‑print family (US 6,353,487 and its continuations, filed 1995 and later, tracing to Ser. No. 08/201,735 filed 1994‑02‑25). Because the later members are continuations/CIPs, that specific text must be confirmed against the original 1994 disclosure of the JPH07261279A application before it is relied on as 1995‑10‑13 art. The index print bearing an order number, and the paid retention‑extension concept, appear to be original‑priority subject matter, but this should be checked in the JP text or the 1995‑filed U.S. counterpart disclosure.

---

6. Bottom line

Overall: the § 103 case is compelling for independent claims 1 and 4 and for the storage/retrieval and recording‑medium dependents, principally because JPH07261279A already teaches the claimed order‑number + user‑ID indexed storage of digital image files with paid retention, and US 5,477,353 already teaches a sender/receiver‑split system in which the sender transmits both digital image data and sender‑identifying, print‑size, print‑count data over a transmission line to a lab that prints and returns hard copy. The enumerated option claims (3, 6, 9) rest on non‑functional recitations of known commercial choices, with claim 9 the softest. Claims 13–14, the downloadable photofinisher directory, are the only claims I cannot make obvious on the patent's own cited prior art.

Verification items before relying on this analysis: (i) confirm the "order number + unique customer identification number in mass storage" disclosure against the original 1994 JPH07261279A text rather than the later Kodak continuations; (ii) retrieve JPH07281937A, JPH08212115A, JPH0534863A and JP3222259B2 full texts (all § 102(b) art by publication date, all cited of record in the JP priority case); and (iii) supply dated art on 1996‑era online directories and prepaid‑card photofinishing payment to close claims 9 and 13–14.