US 7607402

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent and check for any litigation activity.

Let me check for any litigation/CAFC dockets and retrieve the claims of this specific patent.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim text and check the CAFC docket system directly.

Search Report: US 7607402 B2

Important methodological note: I was able to retrieve the full specification and front-page bibliographic data for this patent (from the authoritative Google Patents copy supplied in my working context), plus supporting records for its family. However, my searches returned no USPTO PatentCenter record, no PTAB proceeding, and no CAFC docket entry tying this patent to any 2026 litigation or appeal. I flag each item below by source confidence.

1. Bibliographic identification (from the authoritative patent text)

Note the literal oddity in the record: the priority date is 2001-03-23, and the "adjusted expiration" is 2021-05-21 — i.e., a 20-year term measured from the 2001 chain, with adjustment pushing it ~2 months past March 23, 2021. I am reporting these dates exactly as recorded rather than reconciling them.

2. Abstract

The abstract of record (as it appears in the family and in third-party reproductions of this patent) reads:

"A shape memory material activated device of the present invention uses a shape memory material activator to create a path through a shell wall of the device. The path through the shell wall may release a substance contained in the shell or allow a substance to enter the shell. The path may be created by fracturing, puncturing, exploding, imploding, peeling, tearing, stretching, separating, debonding, abrading or otherwise opening the shell and, may be permanent or reversible. The substance may be released in one location while the device is stationary or along a path while it is traveling, self-powered by the shape memory material activator. In addition, the substance may be delivered to an object upon contact with its surface. The self powering abilities allow these devices to be used as substance delivery devices as well as actuators, transporters, and energy conversion systems with modular characteristics and growth potential. The devices may be armed, prior to the beginning of their service life, to be placed in a state of readiness to release their substances once the path is created. Prior to arming they may be maintained at any temperature, incapable of releasing their substances. The devices according to the present invention may be used as temperature sensors or warning devices, drug delivery devices, and the like."

Source caveat: The full text I was given is truncated before the claims and does not itself contain the abstract paragraph. The abstract above matches the text reproduced for this patent number by multiple third-party databases (e.g., the PatentHub record for US11984680 / US07607402B2: https://trade.patenthub.cn/zhuanlifenlei/list-61612-11.html). It is highly consistent with the specification, but I am identifying the source rather than presenting it as verified from the front page.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview (with an explicit uncertainty flag)

I could not retrieve the exact claim set of US 7,607,402 from the sources available to me. The patent text supplied to me ends mid-specification, and my web searches returned claim text for other members of the same family rather than for US 7,607,402 itself. I will therefore do two things: (a) summarize the inventive aspects that the specification expressly frames as claim-level subject matter, and (b) give the family claim categories with a clear warning that they are drawn from a sibling document (US 2004/0134412 A1, which issued as US 7,048,730), not verified as identical to US 7,607,402.

Aspects the specification states it claims (from the "In accordance with…" passages):

1. Temperature sensor / warning device — a shell containing a substance that provides an indication upon release, plus a shape memory material (SMA) activator that creates a path through the shell when temperature goes above a maximum or below a minimum safe value. The indication may stimulate one or more senses (visual, olfactory, gustatory, haptic, auditory) — see the specification's "Temperature warning devices" discussion.
2. Device for opening a shell — a shell containing a substance plus an SMA activator configured to create a path through the shell once the SMA attains a predetermined temperature or while it changes temperature within a predefined range; path creation may be repeatable with thermal cycling, and multiple paths/multiple shells may be opened simultaneously or sequentially.
3. Drug delivery system — a shell containing a drug plus an SMA activator that creates a path to deliver drug to a patient at a predetermined SMA temperature.
4. Self-propelled substance delivery device — an SMA plus a shell, able to travel (self-powered) to a location, create a path, and release; usable also as an actuator.
5. Energy conversion system — multiple SMA activators converting thermal energy to linear or rotary mechanical energy, which may drive path creation or other devices.
6. Arming feature — an SMA activator transformable from a "dormant" state (incapable of responding to any temperature) to an "armed"/active state of readiness (capable of responding to a predetermined temperature), so the device can be stored/transported at any temperature until armed.

Family claim categories (from US 2004/0134412 A1 — may differ in wording/numbering from US 7,607,402):

• A sensor/device comprising a shell containing a substance and an SMA activator that creates a path through the shell, acting directly or indirectly, with the path being predetermined and/or irreversible.
• A device in which the SMA fractures the shell, or subjects the shell to a volume change, or creates a plurality of paths, to open it.
• A device using a restrained mechanical element (e.g., a compressed non-SMA spring) that is released by the SMA to create the path via stored elastic energy — including variants that emit an audible signal on release (framed as useful for implants, detectable via stethoscope), and versions embodied as an implant or transdermal patch.
• A device for opening and closing a shell (multi-part shell) at first and second predetermined temperatures, optionally using a two-way shape memory effect or a bias spring coupled to the SMA, to provide controlled access to the substance.
• A device wherein the SMA is part of the shell wall itself, or acts on a membrane through which substance is released.

That the independent claims in US 7,607,402 fall into these same functional families is strongly implied by the common specification and abstract, but I cannot confirm exact claim numbering, dependency structure, or whether particular limitations (e.g., the audible-signal and implant claims) survived into this specific patent. Treat the above as a functional map, not as verbatim claim language.

4. Assignee / inventorship detail

• Sole inventor of record: Dennis N. Petrakis. The patent is individually owned (no corporate assignee). Its prosecution attorney of record in the sibling case US 7,445,616 was Richard C. Litman, and the primary examiner there was R. A. Smith; I have not confirmed those are the same for US 7,607,402.
• This patent is one member of a large same-family cluster claiming priority to the March 23, 2001 application US 09/815,643. Related US patents in the chain include US 6,682,521, US 7,048,730, US 7,445,616, US 7,476,224, US 7,655,001, and US 8,172,458. Related PCT publication: WO 2004/093942 A2.

5. Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

• No CAFC 2026 docket or appeal involving US 7,607,402 was found in my searches. The CAFC does not index cases by patent number on its public docket; cases appear under party captions, so a patent-number search would not reliably surface a case even if one existed.
• No PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding referencing this patent number appeared in the 2025–2026 PTAB discretionary-decision materials I reviewed.
• This outcome is consistent with the record: the patent is marked Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration May 21, 2021. An expired patent is not a typical subject of 2026 infringement appeals, though it could still appear in an appeal of a validity ruling or a damages tail.

Uncertainty statement: I was working from secondary aggregators and the patent text itself, not from a live USPTO PatentCenter docket query, and my tool access to the CAFC docket was indirect. I therefore cannot affirmatively certify the absence of any 2026 CAFC activity — only that none surfaced in my searches. If a definitive docket check is required, the CAFC's CM/ECF docket search by party name ("Petrakis") and the USPTO PatentCenter "Legal Events"/assignment records for US 11/984,680 should be queried directly.

6. One-paragraph plain-language summary

US 7,607,402 (Petrakis) is a broadly drafted shape-memory-alloy (Nitinol-class) device patent. Its core idea: store a substance (drug, dye, fragrance, etc.) inside a shell, and use a shape memory material that has been deformed in its martensitic state as both a temperature sensor and a mechanical actuator. When the material warms through its As–Af transformation range (or, in reverse embodiments coupled with a bias spring or trained in a two-way effect, cools through Ms–Mf), it recovers its remembered shape and applies force — directly or indirectly — to fracture, puncture, peel, tear, squeeze, stretch, or debond the shell wall, creating a path that releases the contents or admits a surrounding substance. The patent extends this to drug-delivery (transdermal and implant) systems, self-propelled/self-powered delivery devices, energy-conversion systems, and an "arming" concept that lets the device be shipped and stored at any temperature and only later made responsive to its trigger temperature.

I'll search multiple litigation sources for US patent 7607402.

The initial results returned unrelated patents ("'740 patent" references to Moskowitz and Celgene patents — different numbers). Let me search more specifically.

Litigation Search Results for U.S. Patent No. 7,607,402

Bottom line: I found no litigation — no district court case, no CAFC appeal, and no PTAB proceeding — involving U.S. Patent No. 7,607,402. Based on the sources I was able to search, there is no known assertion of this patent.

What I searched and what I found

I ran targeted searches across web-indexed litigation sources (including the Unified Patents portal domain, CourtListener/RECAP dockets, PTAB/PTABCTS filings, and general docket text) for the exact string "7607402" / "7,607,402" and for the patentee name (Dennis N. Petrakis) combined with infringement/lawsuit terms. The searches returned no docket entry, complaint, judgment, or PTAB petition naming US 7,607,402.

Important caution — do not confuse this patent with other "’740" patents

My searches surfaced several hits for a "’740 patent," but none of them is US 7,607,402. Interpreting the identifiers literally, these are different patents with coincidentally similar last-three digits:

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical Inc. — the "’740 patent" there is a Moskowitz spinal-implant patent that issued July 24, 2018 (a different patent, likely US 10,000,740), asserted in W.D. Tex. No. 6:19-cv-00672, filed Nov. 20, 2019, later transferred to E.D. Pa. No. 2:20-cv-03271, and challenged in an IPR. This is not US 7,607,402.
• In re Revlimid/Thalomid Purchaser Antitrust Litig. — the "’740 Method of Treatment Patent" at issue there is a Celgene patent, again unrelated.
• Various "740" hits in Dutch-language and other unrelated documents were noise.

None of these involve the Petrakis patent, and I flag them specifically so the record is not contaminated with an auto-corrected or mis-attributed citation.

What the patent record itself shows

From the authoritative patent text (Google Patents, US7607402B2):

The individual-ownership profile and the patent's long-expired, maintenance-fee-lapsed status (terminal disclaimer/expiration dated 2021) are consistent with the absence of any assertion activity — an expired patent generally cannot support a live infringement action, which materially reduces the likelihood that any litigation exists or would have survived to judgment.

Limitations on this answer

• I could not directly load the Unified Patents litigation case list page (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or PACER; my results are from web-search indexing of those sources and related docket aggregators. A docket search keyed to the exact patent number on PACER, Docket Alarm, or Lex Machina could confirm definitively.
• Because there is no litigation known to me, I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome — those fields would be fabricated if I supplied them.
• If you need a litigation-grade confirmation, I recommend a direct PACER/Unified Patents/Lex Machina query on "7,607,402" as the sole search term, and a separate query on the patentee "Petrakis" to catch any assertion brought in his individual capacity or through an assignee entity.

Conclusion: No litigation involving US 7,607,402 is known. The "’740" cases appearing in search results concern different patents and must not be attributed to this number.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before drafting.

PTAB Proceedings — US Patent 7,607,402 ("Temperature responsive systems," Dennis N. Petrakis)

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 (zero). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving US 7,607,402, and my independent web verification surfaced no PTAB trial naming this patent either; the breakdown across active / claims-invalidated / claims-sustained / settled / institution-denied is 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0, so the bottom-line defensive posture is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "claims are canceled" — it is that the patent has never been tested at the PTAB at all, and it is expired, which for a defendant means the validity fight Congress built an efficient forum for was never brought here.

Verification note (diligence): searches on "7607402", "7,607,402" IPR, Petrakis "Temperature responsive systems" IPR, and US7607402 reexamination returned no authentic hits. Apparent matches were false positives:

• search results referencing "the '740 patent" resolve to US 8,944,740 (IPR2019‑01393, Forsyth art) and US 10,781,760 (Ford Motor Co. petition, fuel management) — different patents;
• strings like "7607402" appearing in a Dutch-language IAEA/Octrooiraad scan are page/OCR noise, not patent citations.
  I state this explicitly rather than infer a proceeding from a coincidental number string.

Per-proceeding entries

None to report. There is no proceeding number to list, no petitioner/patent-owner caption, no panel, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal for this patent. No AIA trial conduct is on file. I will not manufacture a docket number to fill this section.

For completeness, the only AIA trial vehicles that could even theoretically have reached this patent:

• PGR — unavailable. US 7,607,402 has a priority date of 2001-03-23 and issued 2009-10-27, well before the AIA's first-inventor-to-file (post‑2013) regime. PGR does not reach pre‑AIA patents, and the 9‑month post-grant window closed in 2010 in any event.
• CBM — unavailable. CBM review is confined to patents claiming a "financial product or service" (AIA § 18). A shape-memory temperature-responsive delivery/sensing device is not a covered business method.
• IPR — the only available AIA vehicle, and no petition has ever been filed.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED. No claim of US 7,607,402 has been canceled, sustained, or construed by the Board, because no AIA trial ever issued an institution decision, let alone an FWD. I cannot report which claims are dead or alive — there is no PTAB record to report from, and I will not import claim numbers from an unrelated decision. The patent's entire claim set stands issued and unamended. Anyone telling you "claim 1 has been invalidated" about this patent is mistaken or is confusing it with a different "740."

Expiration is the dominant fact. Per the structured data, the patent is Expired – Lifetime, with an adjusted expiration of 2021-05-21. That has two consequences for a defendant. First, accused conduct occurring after 2021-05-21 cannot infringe this patent — the term has run. Second, the practical value of an IPR challenge is now limited to clearing past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback for earlier conduct; pursuing an IPR of an expired patent is legally possible (the Board has instituted on expired patents) but is usually a cost play tied to live or threatened back‑royalty litigation, not an injunction threat. Note also that the patent's stated legal status is a USPTO/Google assumption, not an adjudication — confirm maintenance-fee and term data through USPTO Patent Center before relying on expiration in a litigation posture.

Estoppel landscape: empty — and that cuts both ways. Because no petitioner ever filed, no one is burdened by § 315(e)(2) estoppel, so any defendant retains the full universe of pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103 art and § 112 grounds in district court. Conversely, there is also no prior petitioner's winning invalidity theory for you to copy. If you are evaluating validity today, you are starting from a clean slate — and against a pre‑AIA patent, so anticipation/obviousness analyses run under pre‑AIA §§ 102/103 (including pre‑AIA § 102(b) on‑sale/public-use bars, which are unavailable as AIA § 102(a)(1) art is not the governing frame here).

Pattern signals. There is no multi-petition pattern, no serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents or similar) in the chain, and no PTAB-appeal history for this patent — simply because there is no PTAB history at all. Petrakis's related family members (e.g., US 6,682,521; US 7,445,616; US 7,476,224; US 7,655,001, plus published continuations such as US 2008/0215037 and US 2008/0282962) are the places to check if you are mapping whether other family patents drew challenges; I did not find evidence of AIA trials on the '402 itself.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted now: the threshold question is temporal. Confirm the exact expiration date and any terminal disclaimer / PTA at USPTO Patent Center and the Google Patents record. If the accused acts post‑date 2021-05-21, the patent is not infringed as a matter of law and the case is over on term, with no need for a PTAB or invalidity route.
2. If you are facing a demand over pre‑expiration conduct: you may still file an IPR (subject to the § 315(b) one‑year bar from service of an infringement complaint and to the Director's discretionary‑denial practice), but weigh it against the fact that no PTAB body has ever construed these claims — you'd be funding first‑instance claim construction at the Board and in court.
3. Confirm the negative yourself before relying on it. Run the patent number through the PTAB E2E / PTAB Center and CourtListener (docket, FWD, and CAFC feeds). The absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal — well‑asserted patents eventually attract IPRs — and its most likely explanation here is that the patent was never asserted hard enough, or was asserted late enough, to justify one.
4. Do not cite any proceeding number from this report as existing. There is none. Any briefing or opinion that attributes an IPR number, panel, or FWD to US 7,607,402 would be fabricated.

Confidence: high that no PTAB AIA trial proceeding exists on US 7,607,402 as of the ODP ingest and as of my searches. Lower confidence that none ever existed historically if the ODP ingest window is incomplete — but I found no evidence of one, and I will not infer one.

I'll start by gathering what I can from the authoritative patent text and public assignment records.

Let me dig into the assignment records and any related corporate entities or litigation.

Let me check for recorded assignments and any litigation involving this patent family.

Inventors

Notes:

• The patent is a sole-inventor, individually-owned filing. The front page of the family uses the (76) Inventor: designation (visible on siblings US 7,048,730 and US 7,445,616, which share this inventor), not the (73) Assignee: field. That means no assignee entity was named at grant.
• No departure pattern can be assessed — there is only one inventor, and there is no original corporate assignee for him to depart from.
• The rest of the family (US 6,682,521 → US 7,048,730 / 7,287,485 / 7,445,616 / 7,476,224 / 7,607,402 → US 8,172,458) is all the same sole inventor. This is an independent-inventor portfolio, not a corporate portfolio.

Original assignee

None — the patent issued to the individual inventor, Dennis N. Petrakis. Google Patents records both "Original Assignee: Individual" and "Current Assignee: Individual" for US 7,607,402, and the corresponding PTO front-page convention for this family is (76) Inventor rather than (73) Assignee.

• Product embodying the claims: No evidence was found that the inventor or any entity commercialized a product practicing the claims. The specification describes temperature indicators, time-temperature integrators, transdermal/ implantable drug-delivery patches, and shape-memory actuators, but I found no product literature, no trademark, and no corporate entity associated with the inventor.
• Primary "line of business": Not applicable — the owner is a natural person, not a company.
• Current status: Patent is Expired – Lifetime per the Google Patents legal status, with an adjusted expiration of 2021-05-21. Ownership status of the underlying rights: still the individual (see below).

Assignment timeline

I was unable to find any recorded assignment for US 7,607,402. Stated plainly: the Assignment Center record for this patent, as reflected in the authoritative legal-events data I could access, contains no post-issuance assignment transfers.

Two caveats on how I established this, because the difference matters:

1. Tooling limitation (disclosed): I could not directly open assignmentcenter.uspto.gov in this session. The "no records" finding rests on (a) the authoritative Google Patents legal-events block supplied for this patent, which lists only prosecution/priority events, and (b) independent web searches that surfaced no reel/frame, no assignee LLC, and no corporate transferee for this patent or its siblings. Its complete event list is:
   • 2001-03-23 — Priority claimed from US 09/815,643
   • 2004-03-17 — Priority claimed from US 10/549,705
   • 2004-03-17 — Priority claimed from PCT/US2004/008338
   • 2007-11-20 — Application 11/984,680 filed / priority to US 11/984,680
   • 2008-11-20 — Publication of US 20080282962 A1
   • 2009-10-27 — Application granted
   • 2021-05-21 — Adjusted expiration
   • No Assignment, Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, or Release entries appear anywhere in the chain.
2. Correspondent of record: Because there are no assignment recordings, there is no assignment correspondent (attorney who filed a recording) to capture — and therefore no repeat-player recording attorney to flag. The only attorney appearing in this family is Richard C. Litman, listed as attorney of record for prosecution on siblings US 7,048,730 and US 7,445,616. That is prosecution counsel, not an assignment correspondent, and Litman is a solo practitioner known for representing numerous independent inventors — a single recurring prosecution appearance is not an NPE correspondent signal.

Per your instruction, I will not manufacture a timeline of nonexistent transfers. This absence is itself the finding: the patent appears to have remained with the sole inventor for its entire life.

Verify directly at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7607402), or the legacy index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Timeline diagram

Rendered from prosecution events only — there are no ownership changes to depict:

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7607402
    2001 : Priority claimed from parent
    2007 : Application 11 984680 filed
    2008 : Published as US 20080282962 A1
    2009 : Patent granted to sole inventor
    2021 : Adjusted expiration reached

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (the "no records / only the original assignment" branch).

Justification: The authoritative legal-events record for US 7,607,402 shows no assignment entries of any kind — only priority claims (2001-03-23, 2004-03-17), the 2007-11-20 filing of 11/984,680, the 2008-11-20 publication, the 2009-10-27 grant, and the 2021-05-21 adjusted expiration — and both Google Patents' "Original Assignee" and "Current Assignee" fields read "Individual" with the front-page (76) Inventor convention used across the family. There is therefore no reel/frame to cite, no shell LLC, no asserter, and no correspondent to analyze; a verdict of NPE would require evidence I do not have, and the constraint against inferring from naming alone cuts the other way here since there is not even a name to infer from. This looks like a self-owned independent-inventor portfolio (Petrakis family: US 6,682,521; 7,048,730; 7,287,485; 7,445,616; 7,476,224; 7,607,402; 8,172,458) that simply was never monetized or transferred — but I flag that my Assignment Center query was inferred from legal-events data and web searches rather than a direct live hit, so confirm the absence of assignments at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ before relying on this for any due-diligence purpose.

I'll search for the patent's citation record. Let me run several targeted queries.

I found the patent family data. Now let me retrieve the specific prior-art citation list ("References Cited") for US 7,607,402 itself.

Let me retrieve the face-of-patent "References Cited" list and the "Patent Citations (6)" list for the '402 patent.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,607,402

0. Target confirmation and scope caveat

Target (literal): US 7,607,402 B2 — "Temperature responsive systems," inventor Dennis N. Petrakis, application US 11/984,680 filed 2007‑11‑20, priority 2001‑03‑23 (from US 09/815,643), granted 2009‑10‑27, published as US 2008/0282962 A1. Sources: the Google Patents record supplied in the working text and https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7607402B2](/patent/US7607402B2)/en ; publication page https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080282962A1/en .

Two cautions before the analysis, stated up front rather than buried:

1. I could not retrieve the complete face‑of‑patent "(56) References Cited" list printed on US 7,607,402 itself. The Google Patents record for its publication US 2008/0282962 A1 shows a "Patent Citations (6)" block (the first entry retrieved is US 4,114,559 A), but the full six‑reference list, plus the foreign and non‑patent citations, were truncated in every retrieval. My direct USPTO‑full‑text and PDF‑page retrievals did not return the (56) block either. Therefore the reference‑by‑reference mapping below is built from (a) the partial "(6)" list I did retrieve, and (b) the common cited‑art record of this family (US 7,048,730; US 7,287,485; US 7,455,668; US 7,445,616), which share the identical common specification ("Temperature Activated/Responsive Systems") and the same 2001‑03‑23 priority and were prosecuted by the same examiner (R. A. Smith). I flag this substitution explicitly; it is a proxy, not the verbatim (56) of the '402.

2. Do not contaminate the record with the wrong "'402 patent." My searches returned PTAB/petition exhibits referring to a "'402 Patent" whose claims are directed to semiconductor process control — e.g., claim 1 reciting "sending an alarm signal indicative of the fault condition to an advanced process control framework …" and "shutting down the processing tool." That is not US 7,607,402 (Petrakis), which concerns shape‑memory‑material‑activated substance‑release devices. This is a numeric/short‑cite coincidence and must not be attributed to this patent. (This is consistent with — and reinforces — the caution already recorded in the previously generated Litigation summary: treat "740"/"402" identifiers literally and do not auto‑correct.)

1. What the '402 actually claims (basis for the §102 mapping)

I could not retrieve the verbatim claim set of the '402 (the supplied full text is the description; the claims section is not present). The claim categories the specification discloses and that the family claims, however, are:

• A shape‑memory‑material (SMM) activator that creates a path through a shell to release a contained substance or admit a surrounding substance (claims to temperature sensor/warning, drug delivery).
• Path creation "once the SMM attains a predetermined temperature or while it changes temperature within a predefined temperature range," repeatable with thermal cycling.
• Arming — a dormant→active state transformation so the device is inert at any temperature until armed.
• Energy conversion / self‑propelled transport variants.
• Rate‑control / variable‑permeability barrier variants (seen in the sibling publication US 2008/0215037, claims 236–240).

Because claim mapping depends on the exact claim language I do not have, the §102 entries below are given as "potential anticipation targets" keyed to these claim categories, and each is flagged as provisional. I do not invent claim numbers I cannot verify.

2. The cited U.S. patent references

The following is the U.S. patent art cited across this family (issue dates as printed in the "U.S. Patent Documents" lists of US 7,048,730 / 7,287,485 / 7,455,668 and the (56) of US 7,445,616). Filing dates are given only where retrieved; where not retrieved I say so rather than guess.

2a. The six‑reference core and the earliest "temperature‑warning" art

2b. The closest anticipatory art — SMM temperature monitors (Weynant, nee Girones)

2c. SMM release/actuator mechanisms (relevant to the FIGS. 4, 14–15, 84–88 claims)

2d. SMM/thermally actuated delivery and valve art

2e. Remaining U.S. references in the family's cited‑art list (peripheral / §103 material)

The following were retrieved as part of the family's "U.S. Patent Documents" and are, on the record available to me, background/§103 material rather than anticipatory: US 1,622,545 (Schellenberger, 3/1927); US 1,625,014 (Amodio, 4/1927); US 2,125,419 (Birk, 8/1938); US 2,460,215 (Chase, 1/1949); US 2,601,440 (Kerrigan, 6/1952); US 2,866,338 (Muncheryan, 12/1958); US 2,953,921 (Muncheryan, 9/1960); US 2,966,261 (Bradbury, 12/1960); US 3,214,278 (Mylo, 10/1965); US 3,291,617 (Barker et al., 12/1966); US 3,440,997 (Rogen et al., 4/1969); US 3,483,752 (Rogen et al., 12/1969); US 3,516,082 (Cooper, 6/1970); US 3,559,839 (Seethaler, 2/1971); US 3,744,348 … ; US 4,280,361 (Sala, 7/1981); US 4,522,147 (Kroll et al., 6/1985); US 4,539,929 (Sestak et al., 9/1985); US 4,872,584 (Sakai, 10/1989); US 4,896,728 (Wolff et al., 1/1990); US 4,950,258 (Kawai et al., 8/1990); US 5,045,064 (Idriss, 9/1991); US 5,076,197 (Darringer et al., 12/1991); US 5,147,351 (Wagner, 9/1992); US 5,176,275 (Bowie, 1/1993); US 5,196,002 (Hanover et al., 3/1993); US 5,207,666 (Idriss et al., 5/1993); US 5,217,449 (Yuda et al., 6/1993); US 5,465,865 / US 5,467, and US 4,631,094 (cited in the '402 specification for the proposition that deformation above ~8 % in Nitinol shifts the A_s–A_f curve upward — directly relevant to the "extended release over a temperature range" claims, FIGS. 33–37).

3. Foreign patent documents

4. Non‑patent literature

• Reynaerts, Peirs & Van Brussel, "An implantable drug‑delivery system based on shape memory alloy micro‑actuation," Sensors and Actuators A 61 (1997) 455–462 — cited in the (56) of US 7,048,730. This is the single most substantive NPL item: it discloses an implantable, SMM‑micro‑actuated drug‑delivery system. It is a strong §102(b)/§103 reference against the "drug delivery system comprising a shell containing a drug and an SMM activator" claim category, and against any claim not requiring a path created through the shell by fracture/peel, since Reynaerts uses SMM to pump rather than to open a shell wall.

5. §102 assessment (summary and honesty flags)

• No retrieved reference is a clean, single‑reference anticipation of the '402's core inventive concept — namely an SMM activator that creates a physical path through a shell wall (fracture/peel/puncture) to release or admit a substance, optionally reversibly with thermal cycling and after arming. The strongest single references — US 5,335,994 / 5,143,453 / 5,018,874 (Weynant) for the temperature‑indicator claims and US 5,118,555 / 5,245,738 (Johnson) for the release‑mechanism claims — each miss at least one core element and therefore read as §103 combinations rather than §102 anticipation for the independent claims.
• Reynaerts (1997) and US 4,627,850 (Deters/Alza osmotic capsule) are the references most likely to be cited against the drug‑delivery and variable‑permeability‑barrier claims respectively, again more as §103 than §102.
• Art status under §102: because the '402's effective priority is 2001‑03‑23, everything listed through 2000 is §102(b) art (printed more than one year before the priority date) or §102(a) if earlier than the invention date; the members of the family itself (US 6,682,521; US 7,048,730; US 7,287,485; US 7,445,616; US 7,476,224; US 7,655,001) are §102(e)/§103(c‑type) co‑family references, not prior art against one another, and must be handled under the common‑ownership/§103(c) rules — they should not be charted as anticipating art.

Limitations you should carry forward

1. The complete (56) "References Cited" of US 7,607,402 itself was not retrievable from my sources; I retrieved only that it is a six‑reference "Patent Citations" block opening with US 4,114,559, and I substituted the family‑level cited‑art list. A definitive analysis requires pulling the printed (56) block from the '402 patent PDF/PatentCenter.
2. The verbatim claims of the '402 were not retrievable in this session, so the "which claim(s) it potentially anticipates" entries are keyed to claim categories, not literal claim numbers. I have deliberately not fabricated claim numbers or quotations.
3. Contradiction flag: PTAB/petition documents in my results use the short cite "'402 Patent" for a semiconductor process‑control patent. That is a different patent and is not US 7,607,402; any chart attributing semiconductor APC claims to this number is erroneous.

Sources used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7607402B2/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080282962A1/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004093942A3/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3c/c3/49/da3d7a606b4163/US7445616.pdf (its (56)); https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/aa/f9/f6/d2cc4bce6cafaa/US7048730.pdf (its (56) and NPL); https://patents.justia.com/patent/7287485 and /7455668 (U.S. Patent Documents lists); https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[7476224](/patent/7476224).html .

I'll ground this analysis by pulling the prior-art references this patent actually cites and checking the surrounding art on SMA-actuated release devices.

Now let me pull the remaining cited reference and check the adjacent art on SMA-driven drug delivery, self-propelled devices, and energy conversion.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,607,402 B2 (Petrakis), 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Evidentiary posture — read this first

The single most important limitation on this opinion is that the verbatim claim set of US 7,607,402 was not retrieved. As flagged in the previously generated Search Report (§3), the patent text supplied to me truncates mid‑specification, and the claim language I could locate belonged to sibling family members (e.g., US 2004/0134412 A1 / US 7,048,730), not necessarily to this patent. A § 103 analysis is a limitation‑by‑limitation exercise; without the claims, everything below is an analysis of claim families, not of issued claims. Where I map a limitation, I label it as inferred.

Second, the legal framework: US 11/984,680 was filed 2007‑11‑20, with priority to 2001‑03‑23. Because the application was filed before 16 March 2013, pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs, and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), supplies the controlling obviousness standard notwithstanding the pre‑AIA priority date.

Third, sources: the five references the patent itself cites (US 5,735,607; 5,531,180; 5,460,117; 5,335,994; 4,664,056) appear in the specification's "Temperature warning devices" paragraph in my authoritative text. I retrieved full text or abstracts for four of the five. I could not retrieve US 5,460,117 — my final searches hit the tool limit. I will not characterize it. I also picked up US 3,440,997 and US 5,143,453 (the parent of '994) as independent corroboration.

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or biomedical engineering, plus 2–5 years of experience with shape‑memory alloys (specifically NiTi/Nitinol thermomechanical actuators), or a master's degree with less experience. That artisan would know the As/Af/Ms/Mf nomenclature and how composition and thermomechanical processing set the transformation window — precisely the frame the '402 specification itself uses ("As and Af temperatures are determined primarily by the chemical composition of the material, its thermo‑mechanical processing and the amount of deformation"). They would also know that SMAs generate large recovery stresses and are already used in temperature indicators, valves, and actuators.

2. The prior art of record

3. Mapping the '402 claim families to the art

4. The specific § 103 combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A — Jehanno '056 + Shahinpoor '607. Renders obvious the temperature‑warning/sensor genus and the two‑substance color‑change species.

• '056 supplies every structural element of the two‑chamber, dye‑in‑second‑chamber indicator: a closed chamber, a second chamber, a barrier between them, and an SMA element that deforms at a predetermined transition temperature to open that barrier.
• '607 supplies the alternative mode of barrier defeat — an SMA that contracts and ruptures a covering surface — and confirms that the rupture is permanent even after the temperature returns to a safe value.
• Motivation: both references are in the same field (shape‑memory temperature indicators for thermally labile goods) and address the same problem — "conventional temperature sensors cannot permanently indicate temporary temperature deviations" ('607) and irreversibly witnessing a threshold crossing ('056). A PHOSITA seeking to widen the selection of shell/barrier materials (brittle foil vs. valve) would look to '607 as a design‑choice catalogue. The substitution of a rupturable frangible membrane for a sliding SMA valve is the epitome of a predictable mechanical substitution with a finite number of identified solutions — the KSR "obvious to try" rationale. There is no unexpected result: both produce a one‑way, non‑resettable indication.

Combination B — A + Weynart '994 (+ '453). Renders obvious the "repeatable with temperature cycling" and "multiple paths created sequentially over a temperature range" limitations.

• '994 discloses an SMA spring that advances a ratchet wheel each time the threshold is crossed, storing the number of oversteppings.
• Motivation: '402's own specification frames sequential, stepwise path creation as the preferred mode for a time‑temperature integrator indicator; '994 is expressly directed to that same counting/integration purpose. One of ordinary skill seeking a cumulative rather than single‑shot indicator would combine '994's stepwise mechanism with the shell‑rupture mechanism of '607/'056. Success is predictable because both rely on the same well‑characterized As–Af hysteresis.

Combination C — Any of A/B + '180. Renders obvious the "arming" limitation.

• '180 discloses activating the indicator only at the point of shipping by removing a pin, and discloses an elastic element "pre‑loaded when the device is triggered."
• '994 independently teaches manufacture/storage "at ambient temperature whatever the utilization temperatures."
• Motivation: the record itself states the problem. The later US 7,220,051 patent (Shahinpoor‑lineage) criticizes '607 precisely because "the sensors suggested by U.S. Pat. No. 5,735,607 patent... can require that the apparatus be kept below the threshold temperature during assembly and storage. This requirement can complicate manufacture and handling." That document is post‑priority and therefore not § 103 prior art, but it is admissible as evidence of what the art recognized as a known problem. Combined with '180's pin‑release and '994's storage‑at‑ambient teaching, the arming limitation is a predictable solution to an expressly recognized problem.
• Caveat: if the arming claim requires the SMA itself to be transformed from a "dormant state incapable of responding to any temperature" to an active state, '180's pin is not a one‑to‑one match. That limitation would need a different secondary reference (e.g., an SMA with a superimposed mechanical stop). I flag this as a potential nonobviousness foothold.

Combination D — '056 alone (§ 102 anticipation risk). If any issued claim reads "a shell containing a first substance; a shape memory material activator configured to create a path through the shell at a predetermined temperature to release the first substance; and a second substance that changes color on contact with the first" without reciting fracturing or irreversible deformation, Jehanno '056 appears to disclose it in full, including the cooling‑activated (Ms–Mf) variant. This should be run as a § 102 challenge before resorting to § 103.

5. Where this obviousness case is weak, and I must say so plainly

1. Drug delivery / transdermal / implant claims. I was unable to retrieve a verified pre‑2001 reference for an SMA‑actuated drug reservoir. I know from general knowledge that reservoir‑array and electrically triggered implantable delivery systems existed in the 1990s, but I will not name a patent number I could not verify — naming one would be fabrication. The argument that would be made is that "drug delivery" is a mere field‑of‑use adaptation of the same shell‑rupture mechanism (analogous art; no change in the principle of operation), but that argument requires an evidentiary anchor I do not have.
2. Self‑propelled / track‑traveling embodiments. Nothing in the retrieved art discloses an SMA‑driven device that locomotes by friction and creates paths along its course. If claims reach this subject matter, they are likely patentably distinct from the art of record.
3. Energy conversion claims. Not established in this session; treat as unproven either way.
4. Claim-scope dependency. Every conclusion above is contingent on claim text I do not have. The keyword-frequency data on the Google Patents page ("reversible effect" 71 occurrences vs. "irreversible effect" 2) hints that the disclosure emphasizes reversible/repeatable path creation more than one‑shot rupture — which would push the claims toward the '994 cycling combination and away from pure '056 anticipation. That is a hint, not evidence.

6. Secondary considerations (objective indicia of nonobviousness)

The specification asserts a long‑felt need — temperature indicators that can be stored and transported at any temperature before arming — which is a classic "problem recognized in the art" argument that, per KSR, cuts against the patentee when the solution is a predictable mechanical one. There is no evidence of commercial success, licensing, copying, or industry praise in the record I reviewed, and the previously generated search found no litigation or PTAB proceeding in which such indicia could have been tested. Absence of asserted indicia means there is nothing to rebut the § 103 case on the broad genus.

I also note the practical context from the prior sections: the patent is Expired – Lifetime with an adjusted expiration of 2021‑05‑21. An obviousness challenge today is therefore relevant only to a validity tail (e.g., an appeal of a pre‑expiration ruling, or damages for pre‑expiration conduct), or to the family members listed earlier (US 6,682,521; 7,048,730; 7,445,616; 7,476,224; 7,655,001; 8,172,458) whose different claim sets I have likewise not verified here.

7. Bottom line

On the record I can verify, the broad "shell + shape memory material activator that creates a path at a predetermined temperature" genus of US 7,607,402 is strongly vulnerable under § 103 — and in part under § 102 — on US 4,664,056 alone, or on '056 in view of US 5,735,607. Adding US 5,335,994 renders the repeatable/cycling and sequential‑path limitations obvious; adding US 5,531,180 renders the arming and time‑temperature‑integrator limitations obvious. The motivation in each case flows from the shared field, the shared problem, express statements in the references themselves ('056's "irreversible" title; '994's multiple‑overstepping and storage‑at‑ambient objectives; '180's pin‑activated turn‑on), and the predictability of substituting one well‑characterized SMA actuator for another.

I cannot reach that conclusion for the self‑propelled transport, energy‑conversion, and drug‑delivery families, and I will not manufacture references to fill those gaps.

To convert this into a defensible opinion you would need: (1) the exact claim text of US 7,607,402 — the previously generated sections flagged this as unresolved and it remains unresolved; (2) confirmation of the scope of US 5,460,117, which the patent cites but which I could not retrieve; and (3) at least one verified pre‑March‑2001 reference for SMA‑actuated drug release if the drug‑delivery claims are to be challenged. If you can supply the claim set, I will re‑run this as a strict limitation‑by‑limitation chart.