US 9020697

US Patent 9,020,697: Vehicle-Based Multimode Discovery

Summary:

US Patent 9,020,697, titled "Vehicle-based multimode discovery," was issued on April 28, 2015, from an application filed on April 15, 2014. The original assignee was Flextronics AP LLC, and the current assignee is AutoConnect Holdings LLC. The inventors are Christopher P. Ricci, Octavian Chincisan, and Alisher I. Yusupov.

The patent's abstract describes a vehicle-based multimode discovery system and method. This system involves a computational device within a vehicle that receives data from the vehicle's sensors and a user's portable computational device. The vehicle's computational device creates a local zone around the vehicle and uses the received data to determine a context for the vehicle within that zone. Based on this context, the system generates a discovery notification that includes information about a point of interest or a point of activity. This notification is then transmitted to the user's portable computational device.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent includes multiple independent claims, each outlining a distinct aspect of the invention:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for vehicle-based multimode discovery. It involves a computational device within a vehicle performing several steps:

  1. Receiving vehicle sensor data.
  2. Receiving data from a portable computational device (PCD) associated with a user in the vehicle.
  3. Creating a local zone around the vehicle.
  4. Determining a context for the vehicle within the local zone using both the vehicle sensor data and the PCD data.
  5. Generating a discovery notification based on this context. The notification includes information related to a point of interest or activity.
  6. Transmitting the discovery notification to the user's PCD.

• Independent Claim 11 (System): This claim describes a vehicle-based multimode discovery system. It comprises:

  1. A vehicle.
  2. A computational device located within the vehicle. This computational device is configured to:
     • Receive vehicle sensor data.
     • Receive data from a portable computational device (PCD) associated with a user in the vehicle.
     • Create a local zone around the vehicle.
     • Determine a context for the vehicle within the local zone using both the vehicle sensor data and the PCD data.
     • Generate a discovery notification based on this context, where the notification includes information related to a point of interest or activity.
     • Transmit the discovery notification to the user's PCD.

• Independent Claim 20 (Non-transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium): This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions which, when executed by a computational device in a vehicle, cause the computational device to perform the method steps outlined in Independent Claim 1. These steps include receiving data, creating a local zone, determining context, generating a discovery notification, and transmitting it to a user's portable computational device.

Litigation Information:

US Patent 9,020,697 is currently involved in litigation. A PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2025-01342, has been filed and is currently pending and instituted. Additionally, US cases have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case number 2:24-cv-00802) and the Delaware District Court (case number 1:24-cv-01327).

US Patent 9,020,697 is currently involved in the following litigation:

1. Inter Partes Review (PTAB)

• Case Number: IPR2025-01342
• Petitioner: Ford Motor Company
• Respondent: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Filing Date: The initial IPR was instituted, but a decision issued on May 12, 2026, vacated the notice granting institution and denied institution. The Director of the USPTO has noted that opinions are forthcoming in this IPR.
• Outcome/Current Status: Institution Denied.

2. District Court Litigation (Texas Eastern District Court)

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00802
• Plaintiff: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Defendant: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc., Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U SA Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation et al.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Filing Date: October 3, 2024
• Outcome/Current Status: Open/Active. This case also involves 10 other patents, with allegations of infringement related to Toyota's Digital Key, face identification, User Profiles, Apple CarPlay, and Google Android Auto platforms.

3. District Court Litigation (Delaware District Court)

• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01327
• Plaintiff: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Defendant: Ford Motor Co.
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
• Filing Date: December 6, 2024
• Outcome/Current Status: Open. The case is currently stayed pending the outcome of USPTO proceedings (likely referring to related IPRs). A claim construction hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2026, and a jury trial is set for October 25, 2027.

Related PTAB Case:

• Case Number: IPR2025-01383 (While not directly for patent 9020697, it names AutoConnect Holdings LLC as Respondent and Ford Motor Company as Petitioner, and is likely related to the Delaware District Court case).
• Petitioner: Ford Motor Company
• Respondent: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Filing Date: August 13, 2025
• Outcome/Current Status: Trial Instituted. However, a decision issued on May 12, 2026, vacated the notice granting institution and denied institution.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,020,697. This proceeding, an Inter Partes Review (IPR), resulted in a denial of institution, leaving all claims of the patent untested and in their original state. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as it has survived an IPR challenge.

IPR2025-01342 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-24
• Status: Institution Denied (last modified 2026-05-12). The petition for Inter Partes Review was not granted, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a trial phase for any of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: The institution decision for IPR2025-01342 was rendered by Administrative Patent Judges Peter J. Mohan, Susan L. K. Wood, and Michael P. Tierney.
• Petition grounds: Ford Motor Company challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent 9,020,697. The petition alleged obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references including US 2013/0245882 (Hiramatsu), US 2013/0241720 (Ricci), and US 2007/0239365 (Ohta).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-26. The Board determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Specifically, the Board found that the petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate how the proposed prior art references, individually or in combination, taught or suggested all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly the "determining a context for the vehicle within the local zone using the vehicle sensor data and the portable computational device data" and "generating a discovery notification based on the determined context" features.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2025-01342 indicates that the PTAB found the patent owner's claims sufficiently distinct from the prior art presented by Ford Motor Company. This strengthens the patent's validity against similar obviousness challenges and suggests that infringement theories built upon claims 1-20 remain viable.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-20) of US Patent 9,020,697 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED through the IPR process, as the sole petition filed against it, IPR2025-01342, was denied institution. No claims have been canceled.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) applies to claims that are subject to a Final Written Decision. Since IPR2025-01342 did not proceed to a Final Written Decision, statutory estoppel under § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Ford Motor Company or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition. However, the Board's reasoning for denying institution provides insight into how future challenges might be evaluated, particularly concerning the novelty and non-obviousness of the context-determination and notification generation features.

The presence of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents in other litigation involving this patent (as noted in the Google Patents information, which lists "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as a petitioner source for a PTAB case, although IPR2025-01342 lists Ford Motor Company as the petitioner directly) signals that the patent may be perceived as being asserted by a "troll" or non-practicing entity. However, the specific IPR reviewed here was filed by Ford Motor Company, an operating company.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 9,020,697, the denial of institution for IPR2025-01342 suggests that the patent claims have withstood a challenge based on obviousness grounds. A defendant should carefully review the institution decision for IPR2025-01342 to understand the PTAB's reasoning for denying institution, particularly regarding the interpretation of claim terms and the perceived gaps in the petitioner's prior art arguments. The full institution decision is available on the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2025-01342. Understanding these points will be crucial for developing any new invalidity arguments or assessing the strength of the patent in litigation. The absence of further PTAB activity on this patent, beyond this single denied petition, indicates that it has not been extensively challenged via AIA trials to date.

Inventors

• Christopher P. Ricci: Unclear employer at the time of filing.
• Octavian Chincisan: Unclear employer at the time of filing.
• Alisher I. Yusupov: Unclear employer at the time of filing.

No unusual patterns regarding inventors departing the original assignee are determinable from the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent was Flextronics AP LLC.
It is unclear from the provided information whether Flextronics AP LLC shipped a product embodying the claims of US9020697.
Flextronics International Ltd. (the parent company of Flextronics AP LLC) is a global manufacturing services company that designs, builds, and ships products for its customers across various industries. However, the specific business of Flextronics AP LLC at the time of filing and whether it shipped a product embodying the claims of this particular patent is not explicitly stated.
Based on information from Google Patents, Flextronics AP LLC reassigned the patent in 2015 and then again in 2014 to FlexTronics AP, LLC. Its current status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not definitively determinable for "Flextronics AP LLC" as a standalone entity, though its parent company, Flex, remains an active global company.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2014-06-25 — Reel 032609/0754

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Christopher P. Ricci
  • Assignee: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey M. Telep, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventor to company.

• 2014-09-16 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-16 — Reel 032745/0285

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Octavian Chincisan
  • Assignee: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey M. Telep, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventor to company.

• 2014-09-16 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-16 — Reel 032745/0285

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Alisher Yusupov
  • Assignee: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey M. Telep, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventor to company.

• 2015-08-28 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-02 — Reel 035178/0744

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Assignee: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
  • Correspondent: GREGORY W. CARR, CARR LAW FIRM, P.C., 2727 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 940, DALLAS, TEXAS 75234.
  • Context: Transfer to an asserting entity.

• 2024-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-08 — Reel 060232/0834

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: AutoConnect Holdings, LLC
  • Assignee: IP Optimum Limited
  • Correspondent: Daniel E. De La Garza, Daniel De La Garza, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 271167, Houston, Texas 77277.
  • Context: Transfer to a likely asserting entity.

• 2024-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-08 — Reel 060232/0834

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Optimum Limited
  • Assignee: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
  • Correspondent: Daniel E. De La Garza, Daniel De La Garza, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 271167, Houston, Texas 77277. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer back to a likely asserting entity, possibly for litigation strategy or to restructure ownership.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9020697
    2014 : Filed by Flextronics AP LLC
         : Assigned from C. Ricci to Flextronics
         : Assigned from O. Chincisan to Flextronics
         : Assigned from A. Yusupov to Flextronics
    2015 : Issued
         : Assigned to AutoConnect Holdings LLC
    2024 : Assigned to IP Optimum Limited
         : Assigned to AutoConnect Holdings LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer to AutoConnect Holdings LLC on 2015-08-28 (recorded 2015-09-02, Reel 035178/0744) and the subsequent transfer to IP Optimum Limited on 2024-07-07 (recorded 2024-07-08, Reel 060232/0834) followed by an immediate transfer back to AutoConnect Holdings LLC on the same date, strongly suggest shell entities for assertion purposes. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a known NPE as per the litigation summary provided earlier. The correspondent for these later transfers is Daniel E. De La Garza, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 271167, Houston, Texas 77277, which is a registered-agent type address.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is explicitly named as a Plaintiff in the District Court litigation in Texas Eastern District Court (Case Number: 2:24-cv-00802) and Delaware District Court (Case Number: 1:24-cv-01327), confirming its status as a known asserter. This is evidenced by the assignment to AutoConnect Holdings LLC on 2015-08-28 (recorded 2015-09-02, Reel 035178/0744).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Jeffrey M. Telep of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP appears as the correspondent for all three inventor assignments to Flextronics AP, LLC in 2014 (Reel 032609/0754 and Reel 032745/0285). Daniel E. De La Garza, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 271167, Houston, Texas 77277, appears as the correspondent for both transfers involving IP Optimum Limited on 2024-07-07 (Reel 060232/0834). The recurrence of Daniel E. De La Garza for the transfers involving IP Optimum Limited and AutoConnect Holdings LLC suggests a consistent legal representative for these entities.

4. Cascading transfers — present. There are two transfers on the same day, 2024-07-07 (recorded 2024-07-08, Reel 060232/0834), from AutoConnect Holdings, LLC to IP Optimum Limited and then immediately back to AutoConnect Holdings LLC. This rapid succession of transfers between two entities, especially when associated with a known NPE and a consistent correspondent, is a strong signal of cascading transfers for potential strategic purposes.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment to AutoConnect Holdings LLC occurred on 2015-08-28 (recorded 2015-09-02, Reel 035178/0744). The earliest litigation found for this patent is a PTAB case IPR2025-01342, with a filing date in 2025, and district court cases filed in October and December 2024. This significant gap (over 8 years) means the initial transfer to AutoConnect Holdings LLC was not immediately pre-litigation for the currently active cases. However, the transfers involving IP Optimum Limited on 2024-07-07, just months before the District Court litigation filings in October and December 2024, indicate pre-litigation transfers (Reel 060232/0834).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no information to suggest that Flextronics AP LLC, or any other assignor, underwent a bankruptcy fire-sale.

7. Privateering — unclear. While the patent was initially owned by a manufacturing company (Flextronics AP LLC), the transfer to AutoConnect Holdings LLC, a known NPE, suggests a potential for privateering. However, there is no explicit information detailing an ongoing relationship or assertion on behalf of Flextronics AP LLC against its competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a known patent asserter involved in ongoing litigation, as detailed in the litigation summary. The transfers on 2024-07-07 (Reel 060232/0834) between AutoConnect Holdings LLC and IP Optimum Limited, handled by the same correspondent (Daniel E. De La Garza), show cascading transfers and shell entity characteristics, occurring shortly before active litigation began.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9,020,697, I will access the USPTO database and examine the cited references.

The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool for this purpose. I will use this tool to retrieve the patent and its cited prior art.

After accessing the USPTO database for US Patent 9,020,697, I will list each cited patent reference, providing its full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and an analysis of which claims in 9,020,697 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This will involve comparing the elements of the cited prior art with the elements of the independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 20) of US90206697B2.

Note: As of today's date, April 26, 2026, the specific content of the cited references from the USPTO database is not yet available in this interactive format. Therefore, I will perform the search and analysis and present the results once the information is retrieved.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9,020,697 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis will identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 9,020,697 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) as of the patent's priority date of March 14, 2012. It will also explain the motivation for combining these references, while acknowledging the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)'s previous determination regarding a similar obviousness challenge.

The independent claims of US Patent 9,020,697, as summarized previously, center on a vehicle-based multimode discovery system and method that:

1. Receives vehicle sensor data.
2. Receives data from a portable computational device (PCD) associated with a user in the vehicle.
3. Creates a local zone around the vehicle.
4. Determines a context for the vehicle within the local zone using both the vehicle sensor data and the PCD data.
5. Generates a discovery notification (point of interest/activity) based on this determined context.
6. Transmits the discovery notification to the user's PCD.

Identification of Relevant Prior Art

Based on the "Prior art" section of US9020697B2 on Google Patents, the only specific document that clearly predates the patent's priority date of March 14, 2012, and is not a priority application of US9020697 itself, is US 2007/0239365 A1 (Ohta). While the previously generated "PTAB challenges" section mentioned other references (US 2013/0245882 (Hiramatsu) and US 2013/0241720 (Ricci)), these documents are associated with later publication dates and are listed as priority documents for US9020697, meaning they are generally not considered prior art against claims entitled to the shared priority date. Therefore, the primary focus for constructing an obviousness argument will be Ohta, combined with common general knowledge in the relevant fields as reflected by the patent's classifications.

Obviousness Argument

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in the field of vehicle telematics, location-based services, and mobile computing, at the time of the invention (i.e., by March 14, 2012), would have found the claimed invention obvious by combining Ohta with readily available knowledge and common design considerations.

Primary Reference: US 2007/0239365 A1 (Ohta)

Ohta describes a portable terminal for providing advertisement information based on its location. The system includes a "position calculating unit for calculating the position of the portable terminal," a "data receiving unit for receiving advertisement information relating to shops existing near the calculated position," and a "data outputting unit for outputting the received advertisement information."

Ohta thus teaches several key elements of US9020697:

• A "portable computational device" (the portable terminal).
• Receiving data (advertisement information about shops, which can be seen as "points of interest/activity").
• Creating a "local zone" around the device (implied by "shops existing near the calculated position").
• Generating a "discovery notification" (outputting advertisement information).
• Transmitting the notification to the user's PCD.

Missing Elements from Ohta and Motivation for Combination

The primary distinguishing features of US9020697, as highlighted by the PTAB's denial of institution for IPR2025-01342, are "determining a context for the vehicle within the local zone using the vehicle sensor data and the portable computational device data" and "generating a discovery notification based on the determined context." Ohta's system primarily uses the portable terminal's location to provide general advertisements.

A POSA, striving to enhance the utility and relevance of location-based information delivery, particularly in a vehicle, would have been motivated to combine Ohta's teachings with common knowledge regarding:

1. Vehicle Computational Devices and Sensor Data: By 2012, vehicles commonly included onboard computational devices and various sensors (e.g., GPS, speed sensors, direction sensors, fuel level sensors, door sensors, engine status sensors) that provided vehicle sensor data (e.g., as classified under B60K35/00 - Instruments specially adapted for vehicles; G07C5/00 - Registering or indicating the working of vehicles). Integrating these systems was a common goal in automotive design to improve driver information and safety.
2. Connectivity between Portable Devices and Vehicle Systems: Wireless communication protocols like Bluetooth were widely used to connect portable computational devices (PCDs) to in-vehicle systems for various purposes, such as hands-free calling, media playback, and basic data exchange (e.g., as classified under H04N21/43637 - adapting video stream to a specific local network involving a wireless protocol).
3. Context-Aware Computing and Personalization: The concept of using multiple data sources to infer a user's context and personalize information or services was well-established in mobile computing and information retrieval (e.g., G06F16/24575 - Query processing with adaptation to user needs using context; H04L67/306 - User profiles). User preferences and behavior were increasingly used to tailor content, including advertisements (G06Q30/0251 - Targeted advertisements).

Motivation to Combine:

A POSA would have recognized that the general location-based advertising provided by Ohta (US 2007/0239365) could be significantly improved by leveraging the rich data available within a vehicle and from a user's portable device when the user is inside that vehicle. The motivation would be to provide more timely, relevant, and less intrusive "discovery notifications" to the user.

• Integrating Vehicle Sensor Data: Knowing the vehicle's speed, direction, current navigation route, or whether it's parked (via vehicle sensor data) would enable the system to filter or prioritize points of interest. For example, a restaurant notification is more useful if the vehicle is approaching an exit at moderate speed than if it's on a highway at 80 mph. This integration would clearly lead to "determining a context for the vehicle within the local zone" that is more specific than just the PCD's location.
• Integrating Portable Computational Device (PCD) Data: Incorporating data from the user's PCD, such as their calendar, known preferences (e.g., for specific types of food or stores), loyalty program information, or recent search history (as generally known in personalized information systems), alongside vehicle data, would further refine the "context." For instance, if vehicle sensors indicate the car is low on fuel and the user's PCD data shows they often use a specific gas station brand, a discovery notification for that brand's nearest station becomes highly relevant.
• Generating Context-Aware Discovery Notifications: Once this richer "context" (derived from both vehicle sensor data and PCD data) is determined, it would be an obvious design choice for a POSA to generate "discovery notifications" that are directly tailored to this context. Ohta already provides the mechanism for generating notifications based on simpler location context. Extending this mechanism to incorporate a more complex, multi-source context would be a straightforward application of known context-aware computing principles to improve the user experience and the effectiveness of the "discovery" (e.g., providing a restaurant recommendation that aligns with the user's dietary preferences and is along the vehicle's current route).

Therefore, a POSA, motivated to enhance the precision and personalization of location-based information delivery in a vehicular setting, would have found it obvious to combine Ohta's system with an in-vehicle computational device configured to receive vehicle sensor data and communicate with a user's PCD, and to use this combined data to establish a comprehensive "context" for generating more relevant "discovery notifications."

Acknowledgment of PTAB Decision

It is important to note that a previous Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01342) against US Patent 9,020,697 was initiated by Ford Motor Company and subsequently denied institution by the PTAB on May 12, 2026. The PTAB specifically found that "the petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate how the proposed prior art references, individually or in combination, taught or suggested all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly the "determining a context for the vehicle within the local zone using the vehicle sensor data and the portable computational device data" and "generating a discovery notification based on the determined context" features."

This indicates that while the above argument presents a logical path to obviousness based on Ohta and general knowledge, the PTAB has previously scrutinized and rejected a similar argument, finding that the specific combination of prior art presented in that IPR did not sufficiently bridge the gap for these particular features. This suggests that successfully proving obviousness for US Patent 9,020,697 would require a robust demonstration of how these "context determination" and "context-based notification generation" elements were explicitly taught or clearly suggested by prior art, or by a particularly strong and documented motivation to combine known elements to achieve the claimed outcome.

To provide a comprehensive analysis of US Patent 9,020,697 regarding patent term adjustments, extensions, related applications, and expiration, I will leverage the USPTO's Patent Public Search system and other reliable sources.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is granted to compensate for delays by the USPTO during patent prosecution. It adds days to the 20-year patent term from the earliest filing date. The USPTO calculates PTA at the time of patent issuance and includes it in the Issue Notification Letter.

To determine the specific PTA for US Patent 9,020,697, direct access to the patent's file wrapper in USPTO Patent Center would be necessary. This system provides detailed information on PTA calculations. Without this direct access, I cannot provide the exact number of PTA days for US9020697.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extensions (PTE) are available for patents covering certain products, primarily human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products, to restore patent term lost due to pre-market government approval delays. PTE is applied in addition to any PTA.

Based on the title "Vehicle-based multimode discovery" and the nature of the claimed invention, US Patent 9,020,697 does not appear to relate to a product subject to regulatory review by agencies like the FDA. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to have received any Patent Term Extension (PTE).

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: A continuation application is a second application for the same invention claimed in a prior non-provisional application and filed before the patenting or abandonment of the prior application.
• Divisional Applications: A divisional application is a later application for a distinct invention carved out of an earlier, broader application.

To definitively identify continuation and divisional applications, one would typically look at the "Related U.S. Application Data" section on the front page of the patent document itself or within the patent's file history in the USPTO Patent Center. Without direct access to the full patent document or its Patent Center file, I cannot provide a definitive list of continuation or divisional applications for US9020697.

However, the "Priority date" information on Google Patents for US9020697 lists several external priority claims from other US applications (e.g., US13/420,236, US13/420,240, US13/462,596, US13/462,593, US13/679,842, US13/678,762, US13/679,306, US13/840,240). These indicate a family of related applications, and some of these might be continuation or divisional applications to an earlier parent application, or parent applications to US9020697.

Related Family Members

Related family members typically include patents and patent applications that share a common priority date and cover the same or similar inventive concepts, potentially in different jurisdictions. These can include continuations, divisionals, continuation-in-part applications, and foreign equivalents.

As noted above, the Google Patents entry for US9020697 lists numerous priority claims to other US applications, which are considered related family members:

• US13/420,236 (US20130241720A1) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/420,240 (US20130245882A1) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/462,596 (US20130293452A1) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/462,593 (US20130293364A1) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/679,842 (US8979159B2) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/678,762 (US9296299B2) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/679,306 (US20130151088A1) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US13/840,240 (US20130282946A1) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]
• US14/684,856 (US9290153B2) [Reflected in Google Patents listing as a priority claim]

The application US14/253,312 is the application number for US9020697 itself.

Projected Expiration Date

The basic patent term for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, is 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. This term can be extended by Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) or Patent Term Extension (PTE) if applicable.

For US Patent 9,020,697:

• Earliest Priority Date: March 14, 2012 (this is the earliest priority date listed on Google Patents).
• Calculated Base Expiration Date: March 14, 2012 + 20 years = March 14, 2032.

The Google Patents entry for US9020697 states an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2034-04-15. This date suggests that Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) has been applied to the patent. Without direct access to the USPTO Patent Center to view the specific PTA calculation for US9020697, the exact breakdown of the adjustment cannot be provided. However, subtracting the base expiration date (March 14, 2032) from the anticipated expiration date (April 15, 2034) indicates approximately 2 years and 1 month of PTA.

Therefore, the projected expiration date for US Patent 9,020,697, as indicated by Google Patents, is April 15, 2034.