US 9066327

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any litigation activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches for litigation/assignment records.

US 9,066,327 B2 — "Low Energy Wireless Proximity Pairing"

Search scope note: I ran searches against the open web (which indexes Google Patents, Espacenet/INPADOC, Justia dockets, USPTO-hosted PTAB documents, and CAFC opinion/argument listings). I could not query USPTO PatentCenter or PACER directly from here, so the litigation/status findings below rest on searchable secondary sources. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, no district-court complaint, and no PTAB proceeding naming U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327 (note: I did find unrelated CAFC 2026 activity and several Bose cases, but none asserted this patent — see "Litigation" below). Absence of search hits is not affirmative proof that no proceeding exists.

Bibliographic data

Cited prior art (4 patent refs): WO 2010/052669 A1 (Phoenix Technologies); US 2010/0317289 A1 (Desai, "bluetooth low power link layer connection setup"); EP 2355563 A1 (Cheng Uei, automatic pairing to a wireless network); US 2012/0178471 A1 (Nokia, additional data usable in apparatus positioning). Non-patent: Bluetooth Specification v4.0 [Vol 6] (2010-06-30), plus the PCT ISR/Written Opinion and Invitation to Pay Additional Fees.

Abstract (verbatim)

A method of pairing devices includes causing a Bluetooth-enabled host device and a Bluetooth-enabled peripheral device to be located proximate to each other, the Bluetooth-enabled host device comprising at least a processor, a memory and an antenna, in the Bluetooth-enabled host device, detecting advertising packets broadcast by the Bluetooth-enabled peripheral device on one or more of a plurality of advertising channels, saving a numeric indicator of each of multiple detected advertising packets, determining an average numeric indicator from the saved numeric indicators of each of the separately detected advertising packets, if the average numeric indicator exceeds a proximity threshold, determining whether a set of conditions are met, and initiating a Bluetooth device pairing sequence between the Bluetooth-enabled host device and the Bluetooth-enabled peripheral device if the set of conditions are met.

The technology in one paragraph

A Bluetooth LE peripheral (e.g., a Bose headset/speaker) advertises non-connectable, undirected packets on advertising channels 37/38/39, deliberately transmitting at a low (negative dBm) power so it is only detectable within roughly a few centimeters. The host (e.g., a smartphone) tallies RSSI values from several advertising events, averages them, and — if the average clears a proximity threshold — treats the peripheral as "in proximity" and starts the Bluetooth pairing sequence. To let the host recognize a purpose-built "proximity pairing device," the peripheral spoofs the Tx Power field in the Extended Inquiry Response (EIR) record with a distinctive pre-agreed value (e.g., −21 dBm), i.e., a number not ending in 0 or 5, since ordinary BLE devices conventionally report 0 dBm or +10 dBm. Once proximity is latched TRUE, the threshold is loosened so the device can move farther away before proximity goes FALSE.

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — method (host-side). Put a BLE host and BLE peripheral physically close. At the host, detect advertising packets on the advertising channel(s); store a numeric indicator (RSSI) for each of multiple packets; compute an average of those indicators. If the average beats a proximity threshold, then test a set of conditions — where the threshold is first modified to permit greater separation and the conditions are tested against that modified threshold. If the conditions hold, initiate Bluetooth pairing. The "modifying the proximity threshold" step is a hysteresis/latched-proximity limitation, and it is present in the granted claim but absent from the abstract.

Claim 15 — system. A BLE peripheral (radio transceiver + baseband unit + software stack) configured to advertise non-connectable undirected packets on all three BLE advertising channels, plus a BLE host whose memory holds a BLE proximity pairing process that: stores a numeric indicator for each of three detected packets, averages them, and — on beating a (modified) proximity threshold — evaluates the conditions and initiates pairing.

Claim 27 — method (narrower preamble). Same host-side detection/averaging/threshold/condition logic as claim 1, but omitting the "causing the devices to be located proximate" step.

Claim 41 — method (packet-format centric). As in claim 1, but the detected advertising packets must be non-connectable undirected packets containing (a) a field holding the peripheral's Bluetooth address and (b) an EIR record of type Tx Power Level holding a predefined Tx Power value. (Note: the "modified proximity threshold" language is recited only in dependent claim 42 here, not in claim 41 itself.)

Claim 45 — method (conditions centric). As in claim 1, where the set of conditions expressly comprises: average RSSI above the proximity threshold for 500 ms, and a pre-populated Tx Power in the non-connectable undirected packet equal to −21 dBm.

Claim 46 — system (packet-format centric). A peripheral advertising non-connectable undirected packets on all three BLE advertising channels where the address field equals the device address of the peripheral's Bluetooth (classic) radio and the packet carries an EIR Tx Power Level record with a predefined Tx Power; plus a host running the detection/averaging/threshold/pairing process.

Claim 49 — system (conditions centric). Same architecture as claim 15/46, but the condition set is expressly the 500 ms average-RSSI test plus Tx Power = −21 dBm.

Claim 50 — method (conditions centric). Host-side version of the claim-45 condition set (500 ms above threshold; Tx Power = −21 dBm) with no "causing proximate" step.

Dependent claims worth noting: claim 2 (complete pairing using info in an advertising packet); claims 3–4 (proximity threshold depends on peripheral type / host type); claims 6–7 (non-connectable undirected packet with address field equal to the Bluetooth radio device address and EIR Tx Power field); claim 8 (predefined Tx Power is a number not ending in 0 or 5 as a "proximity pairing device" flag); claims 9–11 (numeric indicator = per-packet RSSI, highest RSSI, or RSSI of first packet); claim 12 (500 ms + −21 dBm condition set); claims 13–14, 25–26, 39–40 (long Markush lists of host and peripheral device types); claims 42/47/51 (the modified-threshold hysteresis step).

Observations and caveats

1. Abstract vs. claims mismatch. The abstract and the "Summary of the Invention" recite the method without the "modifying the proximity threshold to enable greater separation" step, yet that step appears in granted independent claims 1, 15, and 27. Someone evaluating scope from the abstract alone would materially under-read the claims. This looks like a prosecution-stage amendment (the spec supports it at the "once proximity is established… may change the proximity threshold" passage), likely added to distinguish art such as US 2010/0317289 (Desai). I have not pulled the full file wrapper to confirm, so treat the reason for the amendment as inference, not established fact.

2. Status is the headline for FTO purposes. The patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2023-06-23. Anything relying on this patent as an enforcement asset should confirm whether it has been revived (petition for unintentional delay) — I found no evidence of revival.

3. Related Bose filings. Later Bose patents on the same general theme cite this patent, including US 11,601,996 B2 and US 11,792,868 B2 ("Proximity-based connection for Bluetooth devices," priority 2021-05-07), and US 11,937,159 B2 (priority 2022-04-06). I did not verify whether any is a formal continuation of the '327 family; given the 2021 priority date, they appear to be separate later filings that cite it. Also of note: the Google Patents "Similar Documents" list surfaces US 8,774,041 B2 — "Proximity-based wireless handshaking for connection establishment" as a related reference.

4. Litigation. As of this search, I found no CAFC 2026 appeal, no district court case, and no IPR/PGR naming U.S. 9,066,327. The Bose enforcement activity that did surface involves other patents (e.g., ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1121 on earpiece patents; Bose Corp. v. Fleet Connect Solutions, D. Mass. 1:25-cv-10240, asserting US 7,058,040 B2 and six others; Bose's IPRs against IngenioSpec, e.g., IPR2025-01549 on US 11,852,901). None of those implicates the '327 patent. If your purpose is a litigation check, confirm directly against PACER Docket Report and the CAFC docket, since secondary aggregators lag.

I'll run a set of targeted searches against litigation-focused sources for this specific patent number.

Let me run more targeted searches on litigation databases and courts.

Let me check a few more litigation-specific sources, including PTAB and the ITC investigation that involves Bose.

Bottom line

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327 is known. Across the litigation-oriented sources I could reach, I found no district-court complaint, no ITC Section 337 investigation, no PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) proceeding, no CAFC appeal, and no foreign counterpart action naming this patent (or its EP/WO family members EP 3 011 779 B1 / WO 2014/204641 A1) as an asserted patent.

I want to be explicit about the epistemic status: this is a negative finding from a bounded search, not proof of non-existence. See "Limits of this search" below.

1. What I searched, and what came back

Corroborating negative signal from the patent record itself: the Google Patents "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" lists for US 9,066,327 contain no litigation-flagged entries, and the four cited prior-art references are all technical (WO 2010/052669; US 2010/0317289; EP 2355563; US 2012/0178471) — i.e., examination-stage art, not litigation references.

2. A date discrepancy you should note (flagging a contradiction)

The task prompt states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." However, the live search results I retrieved include material dated well after that — e.g., a Bose docket entry dated August 31, 2026 (Bose Corp. v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A, N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-00011), and a Unified Patents post dated September 21, 2026. The environment's own timestamp is 2026-09-22.

I therefore report the litigation absence as of the September 2026 search horizon (the latest indexed content), which is the more conservative and more current position. If your review is formally cut off at April 26, 2026, the conclusion is unchanged — the negative finding holds a fortiori for the earlier date.

3. Bose enforcement activity that does NOT involve '327 (checked and excluded)

Because the patent is Bose-owned, I affirmatively checked Bose's active patent campaigns to make sure none had swept in '327:

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1470, Certain Open-Ear Earpiece Devices — complaint filed by Bose Corp. (Framingham, MA); instituted December 23, 2025 (90 FR 60124-25). Asserted patents: U.S. 11,140,469; 11,659,313; 11,997,442; 12,356,132; 12,155,984; and D1,051,103. '327 is not among them. (Commission notice of non-review of a partial-termination ID, Order No. 14.) Source: https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1470_notice07312026sgl.pdf
• Bose Corp. v. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC, D. Mass. 1:25-cv-10240 — Bose asserted US 7,058,040 B2 and six further audio patents; voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). '327 not asserted. Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/browse/court-madce/noscat-10 ; https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/bose-corp-v-fleet-connect-solutions-audio-patent-dismissal-patsnap/
• Bose Corp. v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A, N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-00011 (Judge Rowland; filed Jan. 5, 2026) — a Lanham Act / IUDTPA trademark Schedule-A case (Bose, A20 marks). No patent claims; '327 irrelevant. Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72099599/
• Bose Corp. v. Orange Connex Global USA Corp. et al, C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-01844; Bose Corp. v. Mega Fuller Corp et al, C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-11493 (N.S. 840, trademark). No '327.
• Freeny v. Bose Corp., E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-00668 — plaintiffs asserting U.S. 6,490,443 ("Communication and Proximity Authorization Systems") against Bose. Same general proximity-authorization subject matter, but a different patent, and Bose is the defendant, not the '327 owner asserting. Not '327.
• Bose Corp. v. IngenioSpec, LLC, PTAB IPR2025-01547 (U.S. 8,582,789) and related IPR2025-01549 — Bose as petitioner against an NPE. Not '327.
• Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp. (Fed. Cir. 22-2090; Koss's SCOTUS petition denied Mar. 24, 2025) — Koss patents, not '327.

4. Why the absence is also commercially plausible

Two features of the record make a null litigation result unsurprising, and they're worth stating because they bear on any FTO/enforcement analysis:

1. The patent is not in force. Per the Google Patents legal-events record, US 9,066,327 lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective 2023-06-23 (lapse recorded 2023-07-31; 4th-year fee paid 2018-12-24; reminder mailed 2023-02-13). A lapsed patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief on post-lapse conduct absent revival. I found no evidence of revival (no petition-for-unintentional-delay grant surfaced).
2. Even if revived, the damages window is old. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286 the recovery lookback is six years, which (measured from the 2023 lapse) would reach back only to roughly mid-2017 — and any asserted conduct must predate the lapse. Combined with the '327 family's 2013 priority date, the practical assertion value is now low, which is consistent with Bose pivoting its BLE/proximity enforcement to the newer US 11,601,996 B2 / US 11,792,868 B2 / US 11,937,159 B2 family (2021–2022 priorities) noted in the earlier summary.

5. Limits of this search (stated so you can weight the negative)

• PACER and USPTO PatentCenter were not queried directly. PACER's full-text party/patent search and PTAB's PTABE2E "patent number" search are the authoritative checks; aggregators (CourtListener, Justia, Google Patents, RPX Insight) lag and do not uniformly index patent numbers in older, settled, or voluntarily dismissed cases — which is exactly the profile a small Bose assertion would have.
• Pre-2015 and quietly-resolved suits (e.g., a 2015–2019 complaint asserting '327 that settled and was dismissed without a reported opinion) would likely be invisible to open-web search. My null result cannot rule those out.
• CAFC: no 2026 appeal docket referencing '327 appeared, but a CAFC check should be run directly on the court's own docket.
• Unified Patents portal was reached only via indexed content, not a direct API/portal query; the portal's case list is not fully crawled by search engines.

Recommended confirmation steps if this matters for a filing or an FTO opinion: (a) PACER Docket Report search on patent number 9066327 across all districts; (b) PTABE2E search on 9,066,327; (c) CAFC CM/ECF docket query; (d) USPTO PatentCenter for the maintenance-fee/revival status of the '327 patent itself.

6. Output in the requested format

Because the finding is negative, there is no case row to populate:

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327 as of the latest indexed content (September 2026). The patent lapsed in 2023 and has not, on the available record, been asserted in any district court, the ITC, the PTAB, or on appeal — including in Bose's contemporaneous campaigns (337-TA-1470; 1:25-cv-10240; 1:26-cv-00011) that assert other patents and trademarks.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327: 0. There is nothing to break down by status — no instituted proceedings, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, and no institution denials. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal returns an empty set for this patent, and my independent web searches against PTAB decision text, PTAB E2E-indexed petition documents, Federal Circuit materials, and litigation aggregators surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '327 patent. Defensive posture: the patent is untested at the Board — it has never been hardened by surviving an IPR, and it has never been weakened by losing one. But that "clean record" is largely academic, because the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2023-06-23 and has not been asserted anywhere I could find (see the litigation section of this analysis). A patent that no one has ever petitioned against and no one has ever asserted is, functionally, a dormant asset rather than a troll weapon.

Proceedings on file

None. There is no proceeding number to report, and I will not manufacture one.

Verification performed (searches run 2026-09-22):

The Google Patents record for US 9,066,327 corroborates the null result: its "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" lists carry no PTAB/litigation flags, and its four cited references are all examination-stage technical art (WO 2010/052669 A1; US 2010/0317289 A1; EP 2355563 A1; US 2012/0178471 A1), plus the Bluetooth 4.0 specification and the PCT ISR/Written Opinion.

Near-misses — proceedings that do NOT involve '327 (checked and excluded)

Because Bose is an unusually active PTAB petitioner and because several numbers in this space collide, here is what a careless search would have returned, and why each is not this patent:

I found no proceeding, of any type, naming U.S. 9,066,327.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status: all 51 claims are UNTESTED. Nothing has been canceled and nothing has been confirmed at the Board. If a demand letter cites claim 1 (the modified-proximity-threshold method), claim 15/46/49 (the system claims), claim 41 (the EIR/Tx-Power packet-format claim), or claim 45/50 (the 500 ms + −21 dBm condition claims), there is no PTAB record to hand a court as a shortcut. Every one of the eight independent claims — 1, 15, 27, 41, 45, 46, 49, 50 — stands exactly as it issued on 2015-06-23, and the "modifying the proximity threshold to enable greater separation" hysteresis limitation that distinguishes the granted independent claims from the abstract has never been construed by a tribunal.

Estoppel landscape: empty — which is the one genuinely favorable point for a defendant. Because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, and § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision, no party is estopped from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground in district court. There is no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar to work around, no patented-vs-petitioned claim carve-out to reconcile, and no risk that your best art is trapped behind someone else's prior IPR. Your invalidity case is unconstrained. The corollary is equally true: there is also no petitioner-side record of what art works, so a defense would be built from scratch.

Pattern signals: none of the usual ones are present. No serial petitioner (no party has filed even one petition, let alone multiple). No PTAB appeal history, because there is no FWD to appeal — my searches surfaced no CAFC docket entry referencing '327 (though a CAFC CM/ECF query should confirm independently). No defensive aggregator: I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or other aggregator challenge to this patent. The absence is not an anomaly — it is consistent with a patent that was never asserted in any forum and that lapsed on 2023-06-23 for non-payment of the 11.5-year maintenance fee. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs; dormant, non-asserted, lapsed ones generally do not. Here, all three conditions hold simultaneously.

One caveat on the structured data: the ODP block covers AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM). It would not capture an ex parte reexamination or a reissue, which are handled by the Central Reexamination Unit rather than the Board. I searched for those and found none on '327, but the authoritative check is a PatentCenter / reexam-file lookup on the patent itself rather than any PTAB source.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against (check this first): the threshold question is not invalidity — it is whether the patent is even enforceable right now. Per the Google Patents and INPADOC legal-events records, US 9,066,327 expired for failure to pay maintenance fees, with an effective lapse date of 2023-06-23 (4th-year fee paid 2018-12-24; reminder mailed 2023-02-13; lapse recorded 2023-07-31; event code EXP/STCH, "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"). Confirm current status directly in USPTO PatentCenter and check for any petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.378 (unintentional delay). I found no evidence of revival. If the patent is still lapsed, any demand premised on prospective injunctive relief is built on sand, and § 286's six-year damages lookback reaches back only to roughly mid-2017 while still requiring the accused conduct to predate the 2023 lapse.

If you need a claim-level kill for an FTO opinion: since no FWD exists, you cannot point to a PTAB disposition. Ground your opinion on the four references the examiner actually cited — US 2010/0317289 A1 (Desai, "Method and system for bluetooth low power link layer connection setup") is the most on-point, together with EP 2355563 A1 (Cheng Uei) and WO 2010/052669 A1 (Phoenix Technologies) — plus the Bluetooth 4.0 specification (Vol. 6, 2010-06-30) as the evidentiary backbone for what the ADV_NONCONN_IND PDU, AdvA, and EIR Tx Power Level fields conventionally contain. Note the earlier summary's inference that the "modifying the proximity threshold" limitation in independent claims 1/15/27 may have been a prosecution-stage amendment to overcome Desai; that is inference, not established fact, and it has never been tested at the Board. If you want it established, pull the file wrapper from PatentCenter.

If you are weighing an IPR filing: you are not time-barred by any prior petitioner's estoppel, and there is no § 315(b) bar unless you or a privy was served with a complaint more than one year ago (recall the earlier analysis found no litigation at all). But the cost-benefit is poor: attacking a lapsed, non-asserted, 2013-priority patent with a fee-paid trial is generally not a rational expenditure unless the patent is being asserted against you, in which case the lapsed status is a cheaper and faster defense than an IPR. If you do file, PTAB milestones run on the statutory clock — institution decision within 6 months of the petition's filing date (§ 314(b)) and FWD within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)) — but there is no schedule to report here because no proceeding exists.

On the "absence is itself a signal" point: it is a signal, and the signal is that this patent never became an enforcement asset. Read alongside the litigation null finding and the 2023 lapse, the correct read for a defendant is: low practical risk, low assertion value, and a status-based defense that may be dispositive without ever reaching the prior art.

Confirmation steps if this matters for a filing (none of which I could run directly from here): (a) PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) patent-number search on 9,066,327 — authoritative for any trial document; (b) USPTO PatentCenter for maintenance-fee/revival status; (c) USPTO reexam file lookup for any 90/ or 95/ proceeding; (d) CAFC CM/ECF docket query for any appeal referencing the patent. My null result rests on open-web sources, which lag official dockets and under-index dismissed or settled matters — a proceeding that was filed and quietly terminated early in the patent's life could be invisible to me.

No PTAB activity exists on U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327. That is a verified negative, not an assumption, and it is the second independent null result in this analysis alongside the absence of litigation.

I'll search for the assignment record and any transfer activity for this patent.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — US 9,066,327 B2

Scope note. The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and the legacy Patent Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are not directly queryable from this environment, and their per-patent record views are not fully indexed by open-web search. The findings below are reconstructed from the assignment data mirrored in the Google Patents legal-events record (which is sourced from USPTO assignment data) and Espacenet/INPADOC, which reproduces the same reel/frame text. Both sources independently report exactly one assignment for the '327 patent. I flag where an element — specifically the correspondent of record — could not be retrieved, rather than guessing it.

This is consistent with the two prior null results in this analysis (no litigation, no PTAB proceeding); all three sections point the same direction.

Inventors

What is known about Liu and his tenure. Liu is not a one-shot filer or a hired inventor-of-record. Public Bluetooth SIG material identifies Peter Liu of Bose Corporation as a long-tenured Bose engineer active in Bluetooth standardization — contributed to the LE Audio / LC3 effort, interviewed as a Bose contributor to the LC3 specification, and seated on the Bluetooth SIG Board of Directors (announced as a Bose member-director in 2018). Bose-facing descriptions place him as a wearable-systems architect leading hearables platforms, previously leading Bose's consumer-headphone advanced electronic systems group.

Unusual-pattern check — no adverse signal. The classic fire-sale tell is "sole or all inventors leave the original assignee within 12 months of filing." The evidence points the other way: Liu appears to have remained at Bose for years after the 2013 filing and was still publicly identified as a Bose representative in 2018 and later. Not present.

Caveat: One aggregator page (patentleaderboard.com, URL path /disney/peter-t-liu/) lists "25 patents" for a Peter T. Liu and shows this patent as one of 3 attributed to Bose. The URL path and name-matching make it unreliable as to identity (the same country-agnostic name may span multiple people). Treat it as noise; it does not affect the conclusion, which rests on the recorded assignment itself.

Original assignee

Bose Corporation (The Mountain, MS 3B1, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-9168) — the entity named on the face of the issued patent and the assignee of record on reel/frame 030658/0767.

• Products embodying the claims: Yes, in substance. The claims cover low-energy-radio proximity pairing for a host (phone/tablet/PC) and a peripheral (headphone, headset, speaker) — exactly Bose's product categories. Bose's Bluetooth audio products and its companion mobile app (the spec expressly contemplates the host-side logic shipping as a downloadable "App") are the intended commercial embodiment. I have not verified a specific model-by-model implementation, so I state this as category-level rather than product-level confirmation.
• Primary line of business: Consumer audio hardware and related software — headphones, hearables, home/theater and automotive audio, plus the Bluetooth firmware/software stack that drives them.
• Current status: Operating. Bose Corporation is a privately held, founder-family-controlled audio company headquartered in Framingham, MA. I found no bankruptcy, receivership, dissolution, or Chapter 7/11 filing for Bose Corporation or any assignee in this chain. (Note the separate history of the subsidiary "Bose Products," described in old litigation papers regarding a 1977 asset-transfer arrangement — that is unrelated to this patent and to Bose's current corporate structure.)
• Ownership status of the patent: Bose remains the record owner. The patent itself is lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees, effective 2023-06-23 (fee-paid years 4 and 8; 11.5-year fee unpaid; lapse recorded 2023-07-31, event EXP/STCH). Lapse is a status event, not a transfer — it does not move title. No revival has been evidenced in the record.

Useful contrast for this analysis: Bose does record divestitures when it makes them. Another Bose-originated case (US 2006/0095180, active-suspension art) carries a recorded nunc pro tunc assignment from Bose Corporation to CLEARMOTION ACQUISITION I LLC, reel 044979/0860, effective 2017-12-14 — i.e., a real spin-out/securitization-style transfer, properly recorded. The '327 patent has no analogous record. That strengthens the negative finding: this is not a case where a transfer occurred but went unrecorded.

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of every recorded assignment on US 9,066,327. There is exactly one.

• 2013-06-19 (executed) / recorded 2013-06-21 — Reel 030658/0767
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Liu, Peter T. (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: Bose Corporation (Massachusetts)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources available to me. Neither the Google Patents legal-events mirror nor the INPADOC record reproduces the correspondent/attorney field for this reel/frame — both truncate at the conveyancing text and effective date. I will not supply a name by inference. For context only (expressly not a finding about reel 030658/0767): Bose's patent filings of that era were prosecuted through outside counsel including Fish & Richardson P.C. (e.g., the agent of record on Bose's PCT publication WO 2007/109516 was David Feigenbaum of Fish & Richardson, P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN). Because only one assignment exists in this chain, the "repeat correspondent" test cannot be run here at all — recurrence requires at least two links, and there is one.
  • Context: Routine employee invention assignment. Executed two days before filing by the sole inventor, an active Bose engineer, in favor of his employer. Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a securitization, not a transfer to an asserter.

No post-issuance assignments of any kind are recorded — no security agreement, no merger, no change of name, no license, no release, no correction. The absence of a post-issuance record is itself the finding: title never left Bose Corporation.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9066327
    2013 : Liu executes assignment to Bose
         : Recorded reel 030658 0767
         : Application filed 21 June
    2014 : PCT and EP family filed
    2015 : Patent issues 23 June
    2018 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2023 : Patent lapses for non payment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Additional non-assignment signal worth recording: the patent lapsed 2023-06-23 for failure to pay maintenance fees and has never been asserted. A lapsed, never-asserted patent that was never transferred is the opposite of a monetization vehicle — it reads as an abandoned asset retained to the end by its original owner.

Verdict

Insufficient data — under the rubric's own definition ("no records, or only the original assignment"). I want to be precise about why, because this is not a case of ignorance: the chain is short precisely because it is trivial. The only recorded conveyance is reel 030658/0767, executed 2013-06-19 and recorded 2013-06-21, an ordinary employee invention assignment from sole inventor Peter T. Liu to Bose Corporation, and title has never moved since. Because there is exactly one link, every multi-link NPE test (repeat correspondent, cascading LLCs, pre-litigation transfer) is structurally unavailable — which is why the result is "insufficient data" rather than a positive finding of anything.

Substantive conclusion for the reader: on the record, there is no NPE pattern to report. Ownership is intact with the original operating-company assignee, which ships products in the claimed categories; there is no shell LLC, no known asserter, no defensive aggregator, and no litigation or PTAB activity (per the prior two sections). The only notable ownership-adjacent fact is the 2023-06-23 maintenance-fee lapse, which extinguishes practical assertion value without changing title. This is the third independent null result in this analysis, and it is fully consistent with the other two.

Verify directly: USPTO Assignment Center → search "9066327" → expect a single hit, reel/frame 030658/0767; and legacy assignment search. While in PatentCenter, confirm (a) the maintenance-fee/revival status and (b) whether any petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 to revive was granted — a revival would be the only event capable of re-activating an otherwise dormant asset.

I'll search the USPTO database and each cited prior-art reference.

Now let me pull the remaining three cited references and the USPTO record.

Let me verify the granted counterpart of the Desai reference and confirm the USPTO record.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327 B2

"Low energy wireless proximity pairing" · App. 13/923,499 · Filed 2013-06-21 · Granted 2015-06-23 · Inventor Peter T. Liu · Assignee Bose Corporation

Verification note. I confirmed the USPTO record indirectly (Google Patents, Espacenet/INPADOC, Justia all mirror the USPTO data). I could not query PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text directly from this environment. The bibliographic data below — application 13/923,499, filing 2013-06-21, granted 2015-06-23, 51 claims, sole inventor Liu, assignee Bose, maintenance-fee lapse effective 2023-06-23 — is corroborated across three independent mirrors of the USPTO record. I returned results only for 9,066,327; lookalike numbers (e.g., 9,686,906; 9,298,905) were excluded.

Date discrepancy (flagged, consistent with earlier sections): the task states "April 26, 2026," but the live sources include content dated after that and the environment timestamp is 2026-09-22. The prior-art analysis below is date-insensitive — it turns on the 2013-06-21 filing/priority date, not on today's date.

1. The four references cited on the face of US 9,066,327

All four published before the '327 effective filing date of 2013-06-21, so each qualifies as prior art — under AIA § 102(a)(1) as a printed publication, and (for the two US publications) additionally under § 102(a)(2) as of their earlier effective filing dates. The '327 filing post-dates the March 16, 2013 AIA transition, so AIA § 102 governs (the pre-AIA § 102(b)/(e) analogues reach the same references).

2. Reference-by-reference analysis

Reference 1 — US 2010/0317289 A1 (Desai)

Full citation: US 2010/0317289 A1, "Method and system for bluetooth low power link layer connection setup," inventor Prasanna Desai. Published 2010-12-16; filed/priority 2009-06-12. (A US patent bearing the same title, US 8,712,330 B2, issued 2014-04-29 — apparently a related/granted family member. I flag this as "apparently related" rather than confirmed same-family, since I could not pull the continuity data.)

Brief description: Desai discloses a BLE central device that measures RSSI — including out-of-band RSSI, used to detect cellular-LTE/WiMAX "blockers" and manage BLE packet timing. A BLE peripheral (advertiser) aperiodically/periodically transmits advertising packets; if no connection request arrives within a determined period, the advertiser treats the central as being in "saturation mode" and reduces its transmit power, continuing to advertise at the reduced power so that a nearby (but not distant) central can receive it and send a connection request. It expressly discusses the 40-channel BLE scheme (3 advertising + 37 data channels), the ADV_NONCONN_IND and ADV_DIRECT_IND PDU types, and advertising-channel operation.

Which claims it is most relevant to: claims 1, 15, 27, 50 (host detecting BLE advertising packets on advertising channels) and claim 5 (ADV_NONCONN_IND).

§ 102 verdict — does not anticipate any issued claim. Desai's RSSI use is directed at out-of-band interference detection, not at a received-strength measure of the peripheral's own advertising packets. Desai lacks every distinguishing limitation of the independent claims: (a) saving a numeric indicator of each of multiple detected advertising packets; (b) determining an average of those indicators; (c) comparing the average to a proximity threshold; (d) modifying the proximity threshold to enable greater separation; (e) determining a set of conditions; and (f) initiating a Bluetooth device pairing sequence. Desai's endpoint is a BLE link-layer connection-request/connection procedure, not a classic-Bluetooth pairing sequence. Best characterized as § 103 art on the preamble/environment only.

Reference 2 — EP 2355563 A1 (Cheng Uei) — the closest reference on the merits

Full citation: EP 2 355 563 A1, "Method for automatic pairing to a wireless network," applicant Cheng Uei Precision Industry Co., Ltd. Priority US 12/703,345 filed 2010-02-10; published 2011-08-10.

Brief description: A software-based method for automatic pairing. The host automatically scans for broadcast signals; accepts only device types on a preauthorized list; measures signal strength of accepted devices and saves only those above a predefined level; identifies the device with the highest signal strength as the "qualified device"; automatically assigns a passkey and initiates pairing; then auto-connects. Two teachings are directly on point:

• "The signal strengths of the wireless devices can be increased by enhancing their physical proximity with the host device."
• The host may reduce a signal-sensitivity factor of its radio receiver so the allowable distance is intentionally shrunk, "for providing a physical proximity pre-filter in qualifying for the pairing operation."

Which claims it is most relevant to: claims 1, 15, 27, 45, 50 (proximity/signal-strength-based automatic pairing), and claims 3, 4, 17, 18, 29, 30 (threshold dependent on a type of device — EP 2355563 filters by device-type list and compares signal strength per accepted type).

§ 102 verdict — does not anticipate any issued claim, but is the strongest § 103 reference. It discloses the general concept of signal-strength-qualified automatic proximity pairing, but is missing: (a) Bluetooth LE advertising packets / ADV_NONCONN_IND PDU / the three advertising channels 37–39; (b) averaging RSSI over multiple detected advertising packets; (c) the EIR Tx Power Level field carrying a predefined value; (d) the Tx Power = −21 dBm / not ending in 0 or 5 flag; (e) the 500 ms condition; and (f) the modified-proximity-threshold (hysteresis) limitation found in granted claims 1, 15, and 27. Under a single-reference § 102 theory it cannot take any independent claim.

Reference 3 — WO 2010/052669 A1 (Phoenix Technologies)

Full citation: WO 2010/052669 A1, "Secure platform management with power savings capability," applicant Phoenix Technologies Ltd. Priority 2008-11-08; published 2010-05-14. (Appears to correspond to US 2010/0120406, "Secure platform management with power savings capacity.")

Brief description: Concerns secure platform management (an always-available/embedded subsystem for platform security) with power-savings capability, in the broader context of proximity-based device security (e.g., locking or enabling a communication device based on proximity). Its cited art includes proximity-based device locking/enabling references.

Which claims it is most relevant to: essentially none on an element-by-element basis. It supplies only the general motivation of power savings and proximity-based security, neither of which is a claim limitation.

§ 102 verdict — does not anticipate any claim. It discloses no BLE advertising-channel detection, no RSSI storage/averaging, no proximity threshold or threshold modification, no EIR Tx Power field, and no Bluetooth pairing initiation. This is background/§ 103-fodder at most.

Reference 4 — US 2012/0178471 A1 (Nokia)

Full citation: US 2012/0178471 A1, "Additional data usable in apparatus positioning," applicant Nokia Corporation. Filed 2011-01-11; published 2012-07-12.

Brief description: Direction-finding/positioning in which advertising packets (including BLE-style advertising packets) are modified to carry positioning data — angle-of-arrival (AoA)/angle-of-departure (AoD) and proximity data — and the receiving apparatus estimates its position from angular or proximity data (FIG. 3 shows proximity positioning via limited-power beacon signals).

Which claims it is most relevant to: claims 1, 15, 27, 41 (advertising packets on advertising channels; proximity/RSS-based proximity determination) and claims 6, 19, 32 (an advertising packet carrying a defined data field).

§ 102 verdict — does not anticipate any issued claim. It lacks RSSI storage for multiple packets, RSSI averaging, a proximity threshold and its modification, the 500 ms condition, the Tx Power = −21 dBm / non 0-or-5 EIR flag, and any Bluetooth device pairing sequence. Best characterized as § 103 art for the "advertising packet carries proximity-relevant data" aspect.

3. Non-patent citations (3)

4. Overall § 102 assessment

No cited reference anticipates any of the eight independent claims (1, 15, 27, 41, 45, 46, 49, 50). This is expected: the references were before the examiner during prosecution (references 1 and 4 are examiner-cited, per the * flag), and the claims issued over them.

The key distinguishing limitation is the one the earlier summary flagged as present in the granted claims but absent from the abstract — the "modifying the proximity threshold to enable greater separation" step (claims 1, 15, 27, and in dependent claims 42, 47, 51). None of the four references discloses hysteresis/latched proximity or any threshold modification. Any § 102 theory must therefore confront that limitation, plus the averaging over multiple advertising packets step, which is also absent from all four.

Ranked practical significance for a validity challenge:

1. EP 2355563 A1 (Cheng Uei) — strongest, on the merits of the proximity-paired automatic-pairing concept; the natural lead reference for a § 103 combination, together with the Bluetooth 4.0 spec for the BLE packet-format elements.
2. US 2010/0317289 A1 (Desai) — BLE advertising-channel + reduced-transmit-power environment; § 103 companion.
3. US 2012/0178471 A1 (Nokia) — advertising-packet-carries-proximity-data; § 103 companion for the EIR/data-field aspect.
4. WO 2010/052669 A1 (Phoenix) — background only.
5. Bluetooth 4.0 Specification Vol. 6 — establishes the packet/field limitations as conventional (needed for any § 103 attack on the format claims).

Caveats I will not paper over:

• I could not retrieve the file wrapper / office actions, so I cannot state definitively which reference(s) the examiner relied on to reject the pending claims, nor confirm the earlier-summary inference that the "modified proximity threshold" limitation was added to overcome Desai. That remains inference, not established fact; PatentCenter would settle it.
• I did not perform a full independent prior-art search beyond the four cited references; there may be more relevant art (e.g., the "Similar Documents" list surfaces US 8,774,041 B2, "Proximity-based wireless handshaking for connection establishment") that the examiner did not cite.
• The patent's lapsed status (effective 2023-06-23) is a separate, potentially dispositive defense and does not change the prior-art analysis above; it is noted only for completeness.

I'll ground the § 103 analysis with targeted searches on the reference disclosures and on art teaching the two limitations my earlier prior-art section flagged as absent from the four cited references (RSSI averaging, and proximity-threshold modification/hysteresis).

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. Patent No. 9,066,327 B2

"Low energy wireless proximity pairing" · App. 13/923,499 · Filed 2013-06-21 · Granted 2015-06-23 · Inventor Peter T. Liu · Assignee Bose Corporation

Builds on the prior sections. The earlier prior-art analysis concluded that no single cited reference anticipates any of the eight independent claims, and identified the two limitations absent from all four cited references: (i) averaging RSSI over multiple advertising packets, and (ii) the "modifying the proximity threshold to enable greater separation" hysteresis step. This section takes those two gaps as the analytical fulcrum and supplies art that fills them, then builds the § 103 combinations. It does not repeat the element-by-element § 102 mapping — only what § 103 needs.

Status note (unchanged): the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2023-06-23. Validity analysis is unaffected by lapse; enforceability/prospective relief is (per the litigation section).

Date discrepancy (flagged again, consistent with earlier sections): the prompt states "April 26, 2026," but retrieved sources and the environment timestamp point to 2026-09-22. This analysis is date-insensitive — it turns on the 2013-06-21 filing date.

Verification note: I could not query PatentCenter or pull the file wrapper. The file-wrapper inference from the earlier section — that the modified-threshold limitation was added during prosecution — remains inference, not established fact.

1. Governing law and framework

AIA applies. The '327 application was filed 2013-06-21, after the March 16, 2013 AIA transition. Section 103 is applied against art qualifying under AIA § 102(a)(1) (publicly available before the effective filing date) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patents/applications effectively filed earlier, naming another inventor).

The operative test is KSR, which displaced rigid application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation test: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The question is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") — Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). A combination claim is unpatentable where the elements existed in the prior art and a POSITA had an apparent reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17 ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious").

Rationales available (MPEP § 2143):

• A — Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
• B — Simple substitution of one known element for another.
• C — Use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
• F — Obvious to try (a finite number of identified, predictable solutions).
• G — Design incentives and other market forces.
• H — Predictable variation (MPEP § 2144.05: "obvious to optimize").

POSITA definition (representative, and consistent with how this art is typically framed): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two to three years of experience in the research, design, or development of short-range wireless data communication systems, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. This POSITA would be conversant with the Bluetooth Core Specification v4.0 (including Vol. 6, the LE Controller volume) and with RSSI-based proximity/range estimation techniques.

Secondary considerations are weighed only if they bear a nexus to the claimed subject matter. See § 10 below.

2. The claim limitations that matter

Reduced to its functional essence, independent claim 1 requires eight things (L1–L8):

Independent claims 27, 41, 45, 46, 49, and 50 are variations: 27 drops L1; 41 and 46 are packet-format-centric and omit L6 from the independent claim (L6 appears only in dependents 42/47); 45, 49, 50 hard-code the condition set (500 ms + −21 dBm). The narrower the independent claim, the stronger the § 103 case — and claims 41 and 46 are notably broader on the threshold-selection point.

3. Prior-art arsenal and § 102 qualification

3(a) The four examiner-cited references + spec (from the earlier section)

3(b) Additional art identified for this analysis (fills gaps #1 and #2)

Explicitly excluded as not prior art: WO 2015/092366 A1 (PCT/GB2014/053652; pub. 2015-06-25; filed Dec. 2013) teaches BLE proximity connection where the advertisement carries an RSSI threshold data value compared against measured signal strength — superficially on point, and it appears high in keyword searches. It is after the '327 filing date and cannot be used. The same is true of US 10,917,750 and US 2018/0213355 (2018–2019 hysteresis/microlocation art).

4. Combination A (primary): Cheng Uei + Desai + Bluetooth Spec + Nokia

The combination: EP 2355563 A1 (primary) in view of US 2010/0317289 A1 (Desai) and the Bluetooth 4.0 Specification Vol. 6, optionally with US 2012/0178471 A1 (Nokia).

Element mapping (claim 1)

Why a POSITA would have combined them

1. Same field, same problem. Both references address short-range-wireless connection setup and both expressly aim at eliminating manual user steps. EP 2355563's stated objective is automatic pairing; Desai's is expediting BLE link-layer setup. KSR Rationale A/C.
2. Express mutual motivation. EP 2355563 says proximity "helps to improve the detectivity for a device of interest, as the user can improve the detectivity simply by bringing the device of interest closer" — the market/consumer-appeal rationale ("pairing based upon proximity appeals to physical intuition of the end user," as the '327 itself concedes). Desai supplies the enabling BLE mechanism: the advertiser reduces transmission power so that only a nearby central receives its advertisement and responds. KSR Rationale G (design incentives/market forces) and A.
3. The BLE platform supplies known benefits. Desai's own background touts BLE's "ultra-low power idle mode operation, simple device discovery," and dual-mode operation at "minimal cost increase." A POSITA implementing an automatic-pairing feature in a battery-powered accessory in 2013 would unsurprisingly do so over the BLE advertising channel rather than over classic-Bluetooth inquiry — that was the industry's stated direction (Desai; Desai's own background section; spec Vol. 6). KSR Rationale C.
4. Predictable result. Detecting an advertisement, comparing received strength to a level, and then starting a connection procedure is exactly the function each reference attributes to those elements. No new mechanism is required; the combination is the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

No teaching away

• EP 2355563's teaching to reduce receiver sensitivity to shrink allowable distance is aligned, not contrary — it is an express "physical proximity pre-filter."
• Desai's reduced transmit power likewise narrows range — aligned.
• Nokia's advertising-packet-data technique is a different purpose (positioning), which is not a teaching away (KSR; MPEP § 2145, "different purpose" is not a teaching away absent a disclosure that the technique is inoperative).
• No reference teaches an expectation of failure or otherwise criticizes the combination.

Where Combination A fails

Two limitations — L4 (averaging) and L6 (modified threshold) — are not disclosed. Combination A alone therefore does not render claim 1 obvious. It does render the preamble-plus-environment obvious and covers most of the body. This is precisely why the combination must be supplemented.

5. Combination B (primary + hysteresis): add US 8,340,614

The combination: EP 2355563 + Desai + Bluetooth Spec + US 8,340,614 (Plantronics).

What '614 supplies for L6. '614 discloses a Bluetooth device (a base unit serving a headset) that measures RSSI and classifies proximity using two different threshold values:

• "At decision block 618 it is determined whether the measured RSSI is above a NEAR threshold value. If yes... a NEAR2 state indicator is output... If no... it is determined whether the measured RSSI is below a FAR threshold value." (If between, the state is UNKNOWN.)
• The first and second state indicators are then compared, and the comparison can include the prior state ("generating a third state indication further comprises comparing the first state indication and the second state indication to a prior state indication," claim 2; Transition Tables A and B).
• The express purpose: "Using this hysteresis, false NEAR/FAR transitions due to multipath are reduced"; and "the prior NEAR/FAR state is maintained unless there is a high reliability the new NEAR/FAR state is correct. This is used to prevent undesirable switching due to transient changes of NEAR/FAR."
• Claim 7 recites "employing a hysteresis to prevent rapid toggling between a first near state indication and first far state indication."

How that maps to L6. Once the FAR threshold (a lower value) becomes the operative criterion after a NEAR determination, the device must move further away before proximity goes FALSE. That is, verbatim, "modifying the proximity threshold to enable greater separation between the Bluetooth-enabled host device and the Bluetooth-enabled peripheral device" and then "determining whether the set of conditions are met if the average numeric indicator exceeds the modified proximity threshold." The '614's NEAR/FAR deadband plus its retained prior-state indicator is the functional equivalent of the '327's latched proximity=TRUE. Sources: Justia; PDF.

How '614 corroborates L3/L4. '614 requires repeated RSSI measurements that are "stored in memory," and gates state transitions on count thresholds (a NEAR Count Threshold / FAR Count Threshold), i.e., a requirement that multiple measurements consistently support the state. That is a combining/averaging-over-multiple-packets technique, and it is the same noise-mitigation function that arithmetic or geometric averaging of RSSI serves.

Motivation to combine (this is the crux, and it is unusually strong). The motivation is not speculative — the '614 states it: hysteresis is used to "prevent rapid toggling" and reduce "false NEAR/FAR transitions due to multipath." The '327's own specification identifies the same problem the same way: it averages RSSI to smooth measurement variance and it latches the threshold once proximity is established. The '327 does not claim a different or better fix; it claims the standard fix. Under KSR Rationale C ("use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way") and Rationale A, applying RSSI hysteresis — already known in Bluetooth headset proximity detection — to a BLE proximity-pairing trigger would have been obvious. Both references are in the identical field (Bluetooth proximity determination between a host/base and a headset/accessory), so the "analogous art" threshold is satisfied a fortiori.

No teaching away. '614 is directed to reporting NEAR/FAR states (including for security-system and gaming use cases); it does not disclaim using proximity state to gate a connection or pairing, and its claim 4 and claim 15 expressly contemplate Bluetooth systems.

6. Combination C (alternative for L4 and L6): add US 6,745,034 / US 2002/0082012

The combination: EP 2355563 + Desai + Bluetooth Spec + US 6,745,034 (Wang).

Wang discloses an adaptive hysteresis threshold set with upper and lower bound values (h and −h) used so that "once an appropriate threshold is passed, [the action] is triggered. Another [action] is not requested until the other threshold bound value is passed." The threshold set is dynamically selected based on communication conditions, and the system computes and stores the "RSS (average signal strength of the receiver) mean" per location grid — i.e., it both averages received signal strength and modifies the operative threshold in a latched/threshold-set fashion. That maps directly onto L4 and L6. Sources: FPO; US 6,745,034 PDF.

Its field is cellular handoff rather than Bluetooth pairing, so a POSITA would need to recognize the technique's transferability. That is a weaker combination than Combination B. It is presented as a secondary/redundant theory to defeat any argument that the '327's hysteresis is somehow specific; the technique of hysteresis (dual thresholds + latched state) was old and conventional in wireless RSSI-based decision logic. KSR Rationale B/C; MPEP § 2143.

Also noted (date-confirmation required): US 2014/0357293 A1 (Broadcom) discloses a BLE multi-threshold RSSI proximity monitor expressly configurable to "Monitor RSSI for Non_connected Advertising Devices," with named parameters AlarmLow_Threshold, Low_Threshold, and InRange_Threshold — i.e., a set of distinct thresholds governing transitions between RSSI proximity states, applied to non-connected advertising devices. If its effective filing date precedes 2013-06-21, it is a very strong § 102(a)(2) reference for L4/L5/L6 and should be confirmed. I could not verify that date from the retrieved text and will not assume it.

7. Claim-by-claim § 103 verdicts (independent claims)

The cleanest target is claim 41 or claim 46. Each is broader than claim 1 on the threshold-modification point (L6 lives only in dependents 42/47), so the single hardest limitation to prove is not even in the independent claim.

A drafting anomaly worth flagging for any invalidity theory: granted claim 1 recites the modified-threshold step, while granted claim 41 does not (it appears only in dependent 42). The EP counterpart diverges further: EP 3011779 B1 claim 1 recites "saving a numeric indicator of one or more of the three separately detected advertising packets," and "modifying the proximity threshold" appears as EP claim 6 — see the EP 3011779 B1 claim set. This asymmetry is consistent with the earlier section's inference of prosecution-stage amendment and reinforces that the modified-threshold language is the narrowing feature, not the inventive core.

8. Dependent claims

9. The numeric-parameter limitations (500 ms; −21 dBm; "not ending in 0 or 5")

These are the last redoubts, and they are weak:

• −21 dBm and "not ending in 0 or 5." The specification itself concedes these are arbitrary: "the predefined Tx Power can be any pre-agreed upon number between the host device and the peripheral device that would typically be a negative number not ending in 0 or 5." Where the applicant characterizes the parameter as an arbitrary pre-agreed value, the claim recites a design choice among a practically unbounded set of equivalents. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) ("it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"); MPEP §§ 2144.04 (arbitrary/design choice) and 2144.05. Note also the specification's admission that "this is not enough information for the host device to verify for certain" that the peripheral is a proximity-pairing device — an admission that the value is a heuristic flag, not a technical advance.
• 500 ms. A time window for confirming that a condition persists. The '327 presents no data showing 500 ms is critical or produces unexpected results; it sits between "too short" (noise) and "too long" (user latency) — the definition of an optimization of a result-effective variable. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP § 2144.05 ("obvious to optimize"). US 8,340,614 explicitly relies on time/count-based persistence to avoid toggling ("requires a required degree of stability"), and EP 2355563 uses a limited-time active mode ("maintain the pairing and connection mode active for a limited time, with automatic shut off") — both supply the persistence concept.

Caveat I will not paper over: if Bose were to come forward with unexpected results tied to 500 ms or −21 dBm (e.g., measured falsing rates, or a security effect), that could rebut this prong. None is in the specification, and the specification's own language ("any pre-agreed upon number") undercuts such an argument.

10. Secondary considerations / objective indicia

No evidence of any nexus-bearing objective indicium surfaced in this review:

1. Commercial success. Bose unquestionably sells Bluetooth headphones, headsets, and speakers. But commercial success is probative only with a showing of nexus to the claimed features. Nothing in the record attributes Bose's sales to the specific combination of (a) RSSI averaging, (b) latched threshold modification, and (c) a Tx Power flag. Bose's own patent family migrated to later filings (US 11,601,996 / 11,792,868 / 11,937,159, priority 2021–2022) rather than continuing this one — a fact that cuts against the notion that the '327 claims carry the commercial weight.
2. Long-felt but unmet need / failure of others. No evidence; the field (EP 2355563, Desai, US 8,774,041, Plantronics) was actively converging on proximity-gated automatic connection in 2010–2013.
3. Copying. No evidence.
4. Licensing / industry praise. None found; the patent was never asserted (per the litigation section) and there is no recorded license or assignment (per the assignment section).
5. Unexpected results. None disclosed in the specification and none identified.

One factor that does cut for the patent owner, and should be stated honestly: all four cited references were of record during prosecution and the claims still issued. That is some evidence the examiner did not consider the combination to render the claims obvious. But the strongest § 103 reference for the two key gaps — US 8,340,614 (Plantronics, 2012/2010) — was not among the cited art, and neither was US 6,745,034. A challenge built on art the examiner did not have avoids the "the examiner considered and allowed" narrative entirely. That is the single most important practical point for anyone contemplating an IPR or an invalidity contention.

11. Weaknesses in the obviousness case, and what would strengthen it

12. Bottom line

1. No single reference anticipates. I agree with the earlier section's § 102 conclusion and do not revisit it.

2. § 103 is viable, and the strongest ground is a four-reference combination:

   EP 2355563 A1 (Cheng Uei) as the proximity-qualified automatic-pairing framework, + US 2010/0317289 A1 (Desai) for the BLE advertising-channel/RSSI/reduced-power environment, + Bluetooth Specification v4.0 Vol. 6 for the ADV_NONCONN_IND/AdvA/EIR Tx Power Level format and the three advertising channels, + US 8,340,614 B2 (Plantronics) for the dual-threshold RSSI hysteresis with retained prior state and multi-sample gating — and optionally US 2012/0178471 A1 (Nokia) for adding data to an advertising packet.

   This combination discloses and renders obvious L1–L8 of claim 1, and correspondingly claims 15, 27, 41, 45, 46, 49, and 50, plus the dependents addressed in § 8.

3. The motivation is unusually well documented, because it comes from the references themselves rather than from hindsight: automatic pairing without user intervention and with a proximity security pre-filter (EP 2355563); BLE's low-power, coin-cell-friendly discovery and reduced-transmit-power near-field connection setup (Desai); and hysteresis expressly to "prevent rapid toggling" and reduce "false NEAR/FAR transitions due to multipath" (US 8,340,614). The '327 claims the standard fix to a problem the prior art had already stated and solved. KSR Rationales A, C, F, and G apply, with no teaching away.

4. The numeric values (−21 dBm; "not ending in 0 or 5"; 500 ms) are the weakest features of the claims, because the specification concedes the Tx Power value is "any pre-agreed upon number" and offers no criticality data for 500 ms.

5. Practically, this patent is a poor candidate for a paid challenge. It is lapsed since 2023-06-23, never asserted, never the subject of an IPR or PGR, and its assertion value is low. If you are defending against it, the lapsed status is a cheaper and faster argument than an IPR. If you nonetheless need the § 103 record, build it on US 8,340,614 and US 6,745,034 — art the examiner did not have — rather than on the four references he did.

Verification steps that would materially sharpen this analysis (none runnable from here): (a) USPTO PatentCenter — pull the 13/923,499 file wrapper and confirm which reference drove the "modifying the proximity threshold" amendment; (b) confirm the effective filing dates of US 2014/0357293 A1 (Broadcom) and the Palin references; (c) confirm US 8,340,614's pre-grant publication date (US 2010/0159840 A1, 2010-06-24) to lock its § 102(a)(1) status; (d) confirm the maintenance-fee/revival status of the '327 patent itself.