US 9267923

I'll search for US patent 9267923 and any related CAFC 2026 litigation dockets.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to check for any litigation record and confirm the assignee/inventor details.

US Patent 9,267,923 — Summary

Important caveat up front: My searches returned no evidence of any CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket, appeal, IPR, or district-court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,267,923. A targeted search for litigation tied to the number and the assignee produced only unrelated results (e.g., a 2026 Spero v. Mercedes-Benz appeal concerning U.S. 10,894,503, and Google/Cellular South amicus briefing on the USPTO "settled expectations" rule — neither involving 9,267,923). I therefore cannot report any litigation activity, and I flag that its absence may reflect search coverage rather than a definitive "no litigation" finding. Everything below is drawn from the patent text and corroborating patent-database listings.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

"This invention describes a method and apparatus for actuation and multiplexed sensing using an array of sensing elements. The invention can be used for label-free detection of biological and chemical agents in a robust, miniaturized package. The invention integrates photonics, CMOS electronics, and Micro/Nano system technologies and allows multi-analyte sensing in the same package. The preferred actuation method is using magnetic thin films and preferred sensing method is optical using interference means."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

The granted patent contains 12 claims, of which only claim 1 is independent — it is a single-apparatus claim, and all of claims 2–12 depend (directly or indirectly) on it.

Claim 1 — Apparatus for sensing dynamic changes such as mass or viscosity. In plain terms, the claim covers a measurement device built around a reusable/disposable split:

1. a disposable cartridge carrying at least one micro-electromechanical (MEMS) sensor;
2. at least one light source coupled to that MEMS sensor;
3. at least one photodetector coupled to the sensor and the light source; and
4. control electronics connected to at least one actuation means.

The two structural limitations that distinguish the claim are the removable-coupling requirements: the actuation means is removably couplable to the MEMS sensor, and the control electronics/user interface is removably couplable to the photodetector. This expresses the invention's core design philosophy — the MEMS sensor sits on a disposable, passive cartridge (no electrical connection to the readout apparatus), while the actuator, optics/LED/photodetector and electronics remain in the reusable head.

Dependent claims (brief): A single laser source and single photodetector (cl. 2); vibrating sensing structure plus an interference means (cl. 3); an interference means with a substrate having a via per structure so light passes through the substrate to the moving structure (cl. 4); photodetector located on the substrate (cl. 5); light source coupled to the substrate (cl. 6); a heating element per vibrating structure (cl. 7); a plurality of vibrating structures (cl. 8); a two-dimensional array (cl. 9); a single scanned light source (cl. 10); the interference means being a grating on each vibrating structure (cl. 11); and the light source selected from laser diode, LED, or VCSEL (cl. 12).

Notes / uncertainties

• Claim-set discrepancy: The pre-grant publication (US 2014/0147337 A1) presented a different, larger claim set (claims 58–80), including an independent claim 70 directed to a "parallel readout sensor" with at least two differently-resonant vibrating structures and a single actuating coil. The granted patent's claims are the 12 noted above, with only claim 1 independent. Anyone analyzing scope should rely on the issued claims, not the publication.
• Specification drafting residue: The "SUMMARY" section literally contains placeholder text — "it is an object of the present invention to provide [will be filled in when the claims are finalized]" — which appears never to have been completed. This is in the authoritative text and worth flagging as a quality/definiteness observation.
• Continuation family: A related later patent, US 9,846,115 B2, titled "Miniaturized integrated micro electo-mechanical systems (MEMS) optical sensor array for viscosity and mass detection," appears in the family/related-document listings, suggesting a continuation directed to viscosity/mass detection.
• Verification: Title, number, filing/issue dates, inventors, and assignee are corroborated by the Google Patents record, RPX/insight listing, and the family listing. I found no authoritative source indicating any transfer of ownership away from Koç Üniversitesi.

If you need the claim-level infringement or validity analysis, or a definitive litigation check against a specific database (e.g., PACER/Docket Navigator), I'd want to query that source directly — my web searches did not surface any such record for this patent.

I'll research litigation involving US 9267923 across patent litigation sources.

Initial results are noisy. Let me query litigation-specific databases directly.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 9,267,923

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,267,923.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries across general web and patent-litigation–oriented sources, including queries keyed to the exact number in multiple formats ("9267923," "US 9,267,923," "'923 patent" in combination with MEMS/cantilever/sensor terms), the assignee ("Koc Universitesi"), and Unified Patents / RPX / Docket Alarm / CourtListener-indexed material. The instructions called for the exact patent number only, and I excluded results for different patents sharing a similar "'923" or "926" designation.

Why no results (and why that's the correct answer)

• Every "'923 patent" hit returned by searching is a different patent: e.g., AbbVie's '923 patent (pharma/ANDA litigation), Lugus's U.S. 5,806,926 (child safety seat), Cellular Communications Equipment's '923 patent (2:20-cv-00078, E.D. Tex.), and various ANDA counterclaims. None of these is U.S. 9,267,923, and I did not attribute them to it.
• Google Patents' own page for US9267923 lists a "Cited By" and "Families Citing" set but shows no litigation events, no district court cases, and no PTAB proceedings for this patent. The prosecution-history-adjacent citations (e.g., US20050244820A1 to Intel, US20060223171A1 to Cornell, US20060257286A1 to Adams) are prior-art references, not litigation.
• The patent is a university-owned (Koç Üniversitesi) MEMS optical sensor array patent, now "Expired – Fee Related" with an adjusted expiration of 2032-10-06. There are no recorded assignments to a litigation-oriented entity or NPE in the data provided.

Case-by-case listing

Important caveats

• I could not confirm the absence of litigation with 100% certainty. My searches were returned with significant noise, and I hit a tool-usage limit before exhausting every source. The definitive check would be a direct PACER docket search, Unified Patents' portal, Docket Alarm, or the PTAB's Patent Trial & Appeal Board (for IPR/PGR) keyed to the specific number.
• Sources like CourtListener/RECAP are not complete for all districts, so a purely local or recently filed case could exist without appearing.
• A negative result here is not a legal conclusion — it reflects the sources and searches available.

Recommendation

For a definitive litigation clearance on US 9,267,923, run:

1. PACER – search "9,267,923" and "'023 patent" / patent-number field in the national case locator.
2. Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) and Docket Alarm – by patent number.
3. PTAB (developer.uspto.gov / PTAB API) – for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions.
4. USPTO Assignment Center – to confirm there has been no ownership transfer to a litigation entity.

If you'd like, I can attempt additional targeted searches against any of those specific databases.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, since the "proceedings on file" block reports an empty list and I want to make sure nothing recent is missing.

The first searches surfaced nothing relevant. Let me probe a few more angles, including the continuation patent and any PTAB docket by patent number.

Let me check the patent's Google Patents "litigation/PTAB" style listings and the PTAB E2E docket directly.

I attempted to verify the structured data against live sources and hit the tool-call ceiling. Here is the analysis based on the canonical structured record plus what my searches did (and did not) surface.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,267,923: zero (0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials). The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, and my independent web searches found no PTAB trial, no Federal Circuit appeal of any PTAB decision, and no defensive-aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) challenge involving the '923 patent — so a defendant facing assertion today has no PTAB-based invalidity shortcut and, equally, no estoppel against it. The patent's full claim set (claims 1–12, with claim 1 the sole independent claim) is untested at the Board, and every prior-art ground that exists remains fully available both at the PTAB and in district court.

Important corollary: the absence of IPRs means the earlier-flagged pre-grant/issued-claim discrepancy (publication claims 58–80 vs. the granted 12-claim set) has never been litigated or administratively construed. Nothing has been narrowed, cancelled, or disclaimed through an AIA proceeding.

---

No proceedings to report

Because the canonical structured list is empty, there are no proceeding entries to populate with petitioner, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal data. I am deliberately not generating placeholder proceeding numbers (e.g., a speculative "IPR2022-XXXXX") — doing so would fabricate the exact data the task forbids inventing.

What I could and could not verify:

• Verified as absent from the canonical source: the "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP). This is the authoritative list per the task instructions.
• Web-search corroboration attempted: I ran searches targeting the patent number, the assignee (Koç Üniversitesi), the title family, and the continuation patent US 9,846,115 B2. Results returned unrelated matters — e.g., a 2026 Director-level discretionary-denial decision on foreign sovereign ownership, Samsung/Wilus and Medtronic/Axonics IPR stay litigation, and Samsung v. Harbor Island Dynamic. None involved 9,267,923.
• Residual uncertainty: my searches did not directly hit the PTAB E2E docket screen or a Docket Navigator/Bloomberg Law PTAB report for this patent number. I cannot rule out that a very recent or unusual filing exists outside search indexing. Treat the zero-count as high-confidence but not court-certified; the two-minute confirmation path is below.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 12 claims are UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained, none narrowed by adverse judgment or disclaimer in an AIA trial. Claim 1 (disposable cartridge + MEMS sensor + light source + photodetector + control electronics, with the two removable-coupling limitations) remains the operative original grant scope. Dependent claims 2–12 (single laser/single photodetector; interference means; substrate via per vibrating structure; photodetector on substrate; light source on substrate; per-structure heating element; plurality of structures; two-dimensional array; scanned single light source; grating interference means; laser diode/LED/VCSEL) are all likewise untouched. This is material: in IPR-heavy art units, a claim set that has never been before the Board often carries claim-construction and written-description exposure that the patent owner has never had to defend.

Estoppel landscape. With no instituted IPR, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. A current defendant can raise any prior-art ground under §§ 102/103, any § 112 ground available in district court, and can still file its own IPR (subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint alleging infringement). The corollary is the risk side: if you file and get an FWD, estoppel then cuts against you in the co-pending litigation — and because the patent is small (1 independent claim, 11 dependents), a petition should be scoped to all 12 claims to avoid leaving dependent-claim theories unaddressed (the SAS all-or-nothing institution practice makes a partial petition strategically awkward). The Board's March 2025 workload-management guidance and the 2026 Magnolia v. Kurin precedential line also mean a thinly supported petition now risks discretionary denial — a real consideration when the patent has never been tested.

Pattern signals. No petitioner, no repeat-filer, no aggregator in the chain. The assignee is a Turkish university (Koç Üniversitesi), not an NPE with a known assertion-campaign footprint, and the earlier section found no litigation. That profile cuts both ways: low probability the patent is being actively monetized, but also no roadmap of prior unsuccessful challenges to borrow from.

Two situational facts that may dominate the analysis:

1. The status field shows "Expired – Fee Related" with a separate adjusted expiration of 2032-10-06. These are in tension. The 2032-10-06 figure is the nominal term (20 years from the 2011-09-13 PCT filing); "Expired – Fee Related" signal is that the patent lapsed for failure to pay a maintenance fee. The Google Patents legal-events record shows a fee-payment event at 2019-10-14 with truncated text beginning "MAINTEN…" — consistent with either a payment or a lapse notice; I could not resolve which from the fetched record. If the patent did lapse, its enforceability window may have closed years before 2032, which would dwarf every IPR question here. Verify this first in USPTO Patent Center before spending a dollar on validity work. (The earlier-generated summary already flagged the bibliographic record; this is a refinement, not a contradiction, but it is the single most consequential open item.)
2. A sibling patent exists — US 9,846,115 B2, "…optical sensor array for viscosity and mass detection," a continuation directed to fluid-viscosity/mass measurement. It also shows no PTAB activity in my searches. If you are being asserted against, confirm whether the demand letter spans the '115 as well; the family also includes EP 2635900 A2 (withdrawn), CN 103430018 B and KR 101838476 B1 (both listed expired-fee-related), RU 2565351 C2, and CA 2816374 A1 (abandoned), so foreign exposure appears largely lapsed too.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the expiry status before anything else. Pull the maintenance-fee history in USPTO Patent Center for application 13/882,987. If the patent lapsed for non-payment, the practical answer to a demand letter may be that there is no enforceable right to infringe — a far cheaper and faster disposition than an IPR. Do not assume from the "2032-10-06 adjusted expiration" line that the patent is live.

2. Verify the zero-IPR finding directly on the Board's docket (my search coverage could not reach it):

• PTAB E2E / PTAB Center — search party name "Koc Universitesi" and patent number 9,267,923.
• USPTO PTAB Decisions portal — search by patent number for any Final Written Decision.
• CourtListener — search "9,267,923" and "Koc Universitesi" for any CAFC appeal or district-court docket.

3. If the patent is live and you are a defendant: no estoppel blocks you, so your options are open — (a) file an IPR challenging all 12 claims on § 103 grounds, watching the § 315(b) one-year clock from service; or (b) litigate validity in district court, where the never-tested § 112 posture and the specification's drafting residue (the earlier-noted unfilled "SUMMARY" placeholder) are fair game. Note the PTAB's statutory 1-year clock from institution for an FWD, and the Magnolia v. Kurin discretionary-denial overlay if you file alongside parallel litigation.

4. If there is genuinely no PTAB activity, treat the absence as a signal, not a shield. Well-asserted, commercially meaningful patents almost always attract IPRs. Zero proceedings on a 2016 patent that lapsed or is late in its life is more consistent with a low-monetization asset than with a hardened one. That argues for calibrated negotiation rather than panic — but it also means there is no Board record to quote, so any defensive posture you take must be built from the ground up.

Caveat on sourcing: The proceeding list is drawn from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP), which returned empty, and from my web searches, which surfaced no contrary evidence. Because I could not open the PTAB E2E docket screen directly, I flag the residual possibility of an unindexed recent filing. No proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions have been invented.

I'll investigate the assignment record for US 9,267,923 across USPTO records, Google Patents legal events, and NPE/asserter directories.

I was unable to directly query the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) — my searches did not return the reel/frame landing page for this patent, and no external source duplicates the recorded correspondent metadata. The assignment facts below are reconstructed from the Google Patents "Legal Events" record embedded in the authoritative patent text supplied, cross-referenced against the family listings and searches of asserter/NPE directories. Where a field was not retrievable, I say so rather than infer it.

Inventors

Pattern notes: No unusual departure pattern is detectable from the record. The recited signing dates span 2011-01-07 to 2013-04-30, i.e. the inventors executed the university assignment over a period straddling filing and national-phase entry, and the document was recorded 2013-08-23. This is the normal university tech-transfer cadence, not a coordinated inventor exit. I found no evidence that all (or any) inventors departed the assignee within 12 months of the 2010-11-01 priority filing.

Original assignee

Koç Üniversitesi (Koç University), Istanbul, Turkey — the original and current assignee of record per the Google Patents legal-events listing ("Current Assignee … Koc Universitesi"; "Original Assignee … Koc Universitesi").

• Primary line of business: Non-profit research university. It does not ship a commercial product embodying the claims; commercialization runs through its Technology Transfer Office (RPDTTD) and Inventram, a Koç University / Koç Holding joint commercialization and IP-management company that takes exclusive licenses and covers patent costs (per Koç University IP Policy §6.1.3 and Technology Transfer Procedure §§7.1.4).
• Current status: Operating (university). Separately, the patent itself is listed as Expired – Fee Related, with an adjusted-expiration entry of 2032-10-06 — consistent with a maintenance-fee lapse. That is a meaningful non-assertion signal: the owner let the right lapse rather than keep it in force.
• No recorded transfer of ownership away from Koç University was found in any source searched.

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is visible in the record I could retrieve:

• 2011-01-07 → 2013-04-30 (executed; earliest-to-latest signing dates) / recorded 2013-08-23 — Reel 031074/0077
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hakan Urey; Burhanettin Erdem Alaca; Erman Timurdogan (individually)
  • Assignee: KOC UNIVERSITESI (Koç University), Turkey
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources available to me. The Google Patents legal-event entry exposes assignors, assignee, signing dates and reel/frame but not the recording correspondent. I will not guess at an attorney or firm name. To fill this, query the Assignment Center record 031074/0077 directly.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-university assignment under Koç University's IP policy — an employment/tech-transfer conveyance, not a post-issuance transfer and not an arm's-length sale.

No post-issuance assignments (no sale, license recordation, security interest, change of name, or correction) appear in the legal-events record. The only other entries are the 2016-02-03 grant ("patented case") notice and a 2019-10-14 fee-payment-procedure entry, followed by the expired status.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9267923
    2010 : Priority filing by Urey Alaca Timurdogan
    2011 : PCT filed
         : Inventors begin signing assignment
    2013 : Assignment recorded to Koc University
         : Reel 031074 frame 0077
    2014 : Pre-grant publication
    2016 : Patent issued
    2019 : Maintenance fee procedure entry
    2032 : Listed adjusted expiration
         : Status expired fee related

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The sole recorded assignee is the original university (Reel 031074/0077). No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC appears anywhere in the chain; no registered-agent-service address is implicated because no such entity exists in the record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The current assignee (Koç Üniversitesi) matches none of the listed NPEs (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff entry surfaced for this patent or its owner.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / insufficient data. With only one recorded assignment and the correspondent field not retrievable, no recurrence can be established. I did not find any attorney name as correspondent for this patent in a Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress NPE list.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No sequence of LLC-to-LLC transfers; there is exactly one link, dated to the original filing era.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 9,267,923 was found (my earlier searches also surfaced none), and the only transfer long pre-dates issue, so there is no "clean-standing" pre-suit assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No bankruptcy by, or asset sale from, Koç University.

7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company-to-NPE funnel; the owner is the originating university, and the patent was permitted to lapse.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; it terminates at the original university owner.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the record contains only the single original inventor-to-university assignment (Reel 031074/0077, executed 2011-01-07→2013-04-30, recorded 2013-08-23), and no post-issuance chain exists to evaluate. The one fact affirmatively established is that ownership never left the original academic assignee, Koç Üniversitesi, which is a non-practicing university owner (though not an assertion-driven NPE) and which allowed the patent to lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees. No NPE/troll pattern is supported by evidence; every one of the eight signals is either "not present" or (for correspondent recurrence) unresolvable from available sources.

Verification: search patent number 9,267,923 (or application 13/882,987) at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — and the mirrored legacy interface https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — then open record Reel 031074 / Frame 0077 to capture the omitted correspondent-of-record field. Note: my web searches could not reach the Assignment Center directly, so the reel/frame above is taken from the Google Patents legal-events entry in the supplied authoritative text, not from a live Assignment Center pull.

I'll research each prior-art citation of record for US 9,267,923 to build accurate descriptions. Let me run targeted searches.

Now let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,267,923 B2

(Building on the bibliographic, claim, and litigation sections already produced. I do not repeat the claim-1 recitation in full; I refer to claims by number as set out earlier.)

1. Scope, method, and caveats

What I searched. Per the task, I keyed on the exact number 9,267,923 / 9267923 and cross-checked against the reference set of record for that patent. The authoritative prior-art set is the one printed on the patent itself (Google Patents mirrors the USPTO file): 9 U.S. patent-document citations, 11 "Family Cites" documents, and 2 non-patent citations (the PCT ISR and Written Opinion). I did not attribute results for similar numbers (e.g., U.S. 5,806,926 or AbbVie's unrelated '923) to this patent.

Tool-limit disclosure. I hit the search-step ceiling partway through. I obtained verified bibliographic/abstract data for the Intel, Cornell, Adams, Claydon, and Michigan State references. For Fernandez US2005/0043894, Pinnaduwage US2006/0191320, Valencell US2008/0146890, and Leboeuf US2010/0217099, I am relying on the patent's own citation list plus my background knowledge; those four descriptions are flagged lower confidence and should be re-verified against the source documents.

§ 102 framework. U.S. 13/882,987 was filed 2011-09-13, with priority to 2010-11-01 (provisional 61/409,111), i.e., pre-AIA. The relevant provision is pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Every reference below has an effective date (priority/publication) before 2010-11-01, so all qualify as prior art on their face.

Critical § 102 point that frames the whole table. Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every limitation, arranged as in the claim. Claims 2–12 are all dependent on claim 1 and therefore incorporate claim 1's limitations — most importantly the two removable-coupling limitations (actuation means removably couplable to the MEMS sensor; control electronics/user interface removably couplable to the photodetector) and the disposable cartridge. No reference of record discloses that disposable-cartridge / removable-coupling architecture. Consequently, no cited reference anticipates claim 1 or, a fortiori, any dependent claim as a matter of strict § 102. The value of the references below is as § 103 obviousness material and as evidence of what was already known in each limitation bucket. I state for each reference (a) what it discloses and (b) which claim limitations it maps to.

---

2. Summary table — U.S. patent citations of record

(Items 7–9 carry the Google Patents * = "cited by examiner" marker; they are system/background references, not structural art.)

---

3. Reference-by-reference analysis

3.1 US 2005/0244820 A1 — Intel (Su, Chan, Koo, Yamakawa, Berlin) — most relevant on actuation/feedback

• Full citation: US 2005/0244820 A1, "Detecting molecular binding by monitoring feedback controlled cantilever deflections," pub. 2005-11-03; CIP of Ser. No. 10/254,201 (filed 2002-09-24); the sister case issued as US 7,105,301 B2 (2006-09-12) and US 7,270,952 B2 (2007-09-18).
• Description: A cantilever (probe molecules attached) deflects on analyte binding. A counterbalancing force — explicitly magnetic, electrical or radiative — restores the cantilever, and a feedback loop (computer/control unit) maintains it at a fixed position; concentration is read from the counterbalancing force. Detection uses laser + position-sensitive photodetector. Discloses arrays of cantilevers (FIG. 5) and a cantilever with an integrated heater (FIGS. 6–7).
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Discloses the "actuation means" (magnetic), "light source"+"photodetector," and "control electronics" concepts of claim 1, the heater of claim 7, plurality of structures of claim 8, and array (claim 9). Does not anticipate claim 1: no disposable cartridge and none of the removable-coupling limitations. As a single reference it likewise cannot anticipate the dependent claims (which carry claim 1's limitations), but it is strong § 103 art against the actuation/feedback/heater concepts.

3.2 US 2006/0223171 A1 — Cornell (Craighead, Ilic, Czaplewski, Hall) — most relevant on optical interference readout

• Full citation: US 2006/0223171 A1, "High sensitivity mechanical resonant sensor," pub. 2006-10-05; filed 2006-01-31; priority 2000-07-12; granted as US 7,691,583 B2 (2010-04-06); related US 7,148,017 B1 (2006-12-12).
• Description: Mass detection via resonant-frequency differential of a micromachined cantilever beam. The frequency response is read optically by interferometry — laser light reflected from the beam surface and the underlying substrate produces an interference pattern of varying intensity, transduced by a single photodetector (explicitly contrasted with two-detector/split-cell schemes); output drives a spectrum analyzer; the beam is driven externally or by ambient noise. A companion Cornell patent (US 6,515,751) teaches the sub-wavelength grating/mesh variant whose spaced elements "form, in effect, an optical grating."
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Directly maps to claim 3 (vibrating structure + interference means), claim 2 (single photodetector), and claim 11 (grating as interference means). It is the closest art to the patent's core optical idea of monitoring interference/diffraction between a vibrating cantilever and the substrate. It does not disclose a substrate via (claims 4–6) — Cornell reflects off, rather than transmits through, the substrate — and lacks claim 1's disposable/removable architecture. No anticipation; strong § 103 art for claims 2, 3, 11.

3.3 US 2006/0257286 A1 — Adams (Univ. of Nevada) — most relevant on arrays + heaters + enclosure

• Full citation: US 2006/0257286 A1, "Self-sensing array of microcantilevers for chemical detection," pub. 2006-11-16; filed 2004-10-15; priority 2003-10-17 (prov. 60/512,504); later family members include GB2432001B and US 9,726,665.
• Description: A self-sensed cantilevered probe array (piezoelectric drive/sense) with chemical-sensitive coatings; an interface circuit actuates the probes and detects response; resistive heaters on the probes; a handheld chemical detection system; an enclosure with inlet/outlet ports (flowcell-like). Detection here is electrical (self-sensing), not the optical scheme of the patent.
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Maps to claim 8 (plurality of vibrating structures), claim 9 (array), claim 7 (heating element), and the "control electronics coupled to an actuation means" element of claim 1; also the fluid-handling/enclosure concept. Because it departs from optical readout and lacks the disposable/removable-coupling architecture, it does not anticipate claim 1 or its dependents; useful § 103 art, especially for claims 7–9.

3.4 US 2008/0110247 A1 — Michigan State Univ. (Shaw, Rhoads, DeMartini, Turner) — most relevant on multiplexed single-detector arrays

• Full citation: US 2008/0110247 A1, "Sensor with microelectro-mechanical oscillators," pub. 2008-05-15; filed 2007-06-01; priority 2006-06-02; granted as US 7,584,649 B2 (2009-09-08).
• Description: A coupled array of frequency-mistuned microbeam resonators on a shuttle mass; a single excitation drives the system and a single output (SISO) carries multiple-analyte information via induced resonance shifts; drive can be electrostatic (comb) or magnetic (FIGS. 15–19); a "vibration sensor" detects the shuttle response. Beams can be coated with different materials for different analytes.
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Maps to claim 8/9 (arrays) and to claim 2's "single photodetector" concept in functional terms (single output channel for many resonators). Does not disclose optical interference readout, a disposable cartridge, or removable coupling — no anticipation; useful for the multiplexing/single-output aspects of claims 2 and 9.

3.5 US 2005/0262943 A1 — Glenn Claydon — most relevant on combined magnetic-actuation + optical-readout + heater

• Full citation: US 2005/0262943 A1, "Apparatus, methods, and systems to detect an analyte based on changes in a resonant frequency of a spring element," pub. 2005-12-01; filed 2004-05-27.
• Description: MEMS sensor with a sensing material on a spring element (membrane/cantilever/bridge); a detector determines the resonant frequency, which shifts on analyte exposure. Claimed detector options explicitly include magnetic (Lorentz) actuation — a conductor carrying AC current in a normal magnetic field (claims 2–3) — and an optical source + optical detector (claim 7). The spec also proposes micro-heaters to desorb analyte (and notes the conductor itself may serve as the heater) and multiple spring elements for multiple analytes (claim 10), plus a reference element (claim 9).
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Maps to claim 1 (light source, photodetector, magnetic actuation, control electronics), claim 2 (optical detection), claim 7 (heater), claim 8 (second spring element). It is one of the closest references on the "same structure both magnetically actuated and optically read" concept. Still lacks the disposable cartridge and removable-coupling limitations → no anticipation; valuable § 103 art.

3.6 US 2006/0191320 A1 — Pinnaduwage et al. — functionalization / chem-bio-explosive detection (lower confidence)

• Full citation: US 2006/0191320 A1, "Chemically-functionalized microcantilevers for detection of chemical, biological and explosive material," pub. 2006-08-31; priority 2004-02-19.
• Description (from title/field and general knowledge; not fully verified this session): Microcantilever arrays bearing chemically selective coatings for detecting chemical/biological/explosive analytes, with optical (laser-deflection) or piezoresistive readout in the art.
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Relates to the functionalization of cantilever surfaces (the patent's specification emphasizes Hepatitis-A antibody functionalization) and to arrays/coatings — i.e., context for claims 3, 8, 11. Not anticipatory of claim 1. Verify against source.

3.7 US 2005/0043894 A1 — Fernandez — system-level background (lower confidence)

• Full citation: US 2005/0043894 A1, "Integrated biosensor and simulation system for diagnosis and therapy," pub. 2005-02-24; priority 2003-08-22. Marked cited-by-examiner.
• Description: Broad integrated biosensor/physiological simulation system for diagnosis and therapy — cited for the generalized "integrated biosensor system" concept, not for MEMS/optical structure.
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Touches only the preamble ("apparatus for sensing") of claim 1; provides no structural limitations. Not anticipatory. Verify against source.

3.8 US 2008/0146890 A1 — Valencell — telemetry / user interface (lower confidence)

• Full citation: US 2008/0146890 A1, "Telemetric apparatus for health and environmental monitoring," pub. 2008-06-19; priority 2006-12-19. Marked cited-by-examiner.
• Description: Wearable/telemetric health and environmental monitoring device — cited for the user-interface/telemetry aspect.
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Maps loosely to the "user interface" element of claim 1. No MEMS-cantilever or optical-interference disclosure; not anticipatory. Verify against source.

3.9 US 2010/0217099 A1 — Leboeuf — physiological monitoring background (lower confidence)

• Full citation: US 2010/0217099 A1, "Methods and Apparatus for Assessing Physiological Conditions," pub. 2010-08-26; priority 2009-02-25. Marked cited-by-examiner.
• Description: Physiological-condition assessment (Valencell-related) — background art for a diagnostic/POC context.
• Claim mapping / potential § 102: Background only; no structural overlap with claim 1. Not anticipatory. Verify against source.

---

4. Family Cites (11) and Non-Patent Citations (2)

Family Cites Families (references cited during prosecution of the family, i.e., the foreign counterparts — relevant mainly as the art the PCT/foreign examiners relied on; none is a U.S. § 102 reference against the U.S. claims unless it independently published before the priority date):
JP H0830673B2 (dust mass concentration); JP 2849697B2 (2-DOF vibration microactuator); RU 2148259 C1 (biosensor macromolecule detection); AU 2003299534 A1 (Bioscale, resonant sensor/System — a resonant mass-sensor platform); WO 2005/043126 A2 (Drexel, piezoelectric cantilever sensors); KR 100552696 B1 (Samsung, fine mass measurement with oscillation circuit); KR 100583233 B1 (biomaterial measurement); JP 4484061 B2 (chemical sensor); RU 2327984 C1 (multichannel piezo "electronic nose"); CN 101135624 A (molecular conformational transitions / biochemical reactions); CN 101373175 A (target/probe macromolecule conformational transition).

The Bioscale AU '534, the Samsung KR '696, and the CN '175 references are the ones with the most conceptual overlap (resonant mass sensing of molecular binding) and would be worth pulling if a § 103 combination is ever built around mass-accumulation sensing.

Non-Patent Citations (2):

1. International Search Report, mailed 2012-05-31, for PCT/IB2011/054000.
2. Written Opinion, mailed 2012-05-31, for PCT/IB2011/054000 (as printed, "PCT/IB20011/054000" — the patent's own text contains this typographical duplication).

These two documents are the examiner's own prior-art opinion and are the single best guide to what the examiner considered most material; the nine U.S. citations above are the references surviving into the U.S. IDS.

Post-dating references (not prior art): the "Cited By" set — Honeywell's US 2015/0177207 A1 / US 9,557,306 B2 ("Magnetically controlled gas detectors," prio. 2013-12-20) — post-dates the 2010 priority and is later art, not citable against U.S. 9,267,923.

---

5. Bottom line

1. No reference of record anticipates any claim of US 9,267,923 under § 102. Every claim is anchored to independent claim 1, whose distinguishing limitations are the disposable cartridge and the two removable couplings (actuation means↔MEMS sensor; control electronics/user interface↔photodetector). None of the nine cited U.S. documents, the eleven family citations, or the two non-patent citations discloses that split-architecture. This is the patent's point of novelty, and it is consistent with the patent's own framing ("universal read-out with no physical connection or electrical conductors to the MEMS chip").

2. Most relevant prior art (for § 103 and for limitation-by-limitation defense), in order:

   • Cornell US 2006/0223171 A1 / US 7,691,583 B2 — closest on the optical interference/diffraction readout with a single photodetector (claims 2, 3, 11).
   • Intel US 2005/0244820 A1 / US 7,105,301 B2 — closest on magnetic actuation + closed-loop feedback + cantilever arrays + integrated heater (claims 1, 7, 8, 9).
   • Claydon US 2005/0262943 A1 — closest on the same element being magnetically actuated and optically read, plus microheaters (claims 1, 2, 7).
   • Adams US 2006/0257286 A1 and Michigan State US 2008/0110247 A1 — closest on multiplexed microcantilever arrays / single-output readout (claims 2, 8, 9).

3. Limitations with little or no prior-art coverage in this set: the substrate via transmitting light to the moving structure (claims 4–6), the scanned single light source (claim 10), and the VCSEL/LED/laser-diode selection (claim 12) — reinforcing that claim 1's architecture, and its via-based integration claims, are the defensible core.

4. Action for a definitive record: pull the two PCT ISR/Written Opinion documents (mailed 2012-05-31) — they contain the examiner's explicit § 102/§ 103 reasoning and will confirm which of the nine references the examiner treated as most material; and re-verify the four lower-confidence entries (Fernandez, Pinnaduwage, Valencell, Leboeuf) against their full texts, which I could not complete before hitting the search-step limit.

I'll ground the key prior-art references from the patent's citation list before building the §103 analysis.

Let me ground the remaining key cited references, especially the ones most relevant to the multiplexed/single-detector and heater limitations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,267,923 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections. Those sections established the bibliographic record, the granted 12-claim set, and the absence of any located litigation. This section does not repeat them; it assumes them. One cross-reference point is flagged below in §H (it concerns the expired/fee-status and the continuation, and it does not contradict anything already written).

Threshold note on which references I am using. The task directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." That section comprises (i) the nine "Patent Citations" ("Citations (9)"), (ii) the eleven "Family Cites Families" items (largely foreign: JP, RU, KR, CN, AU, WO), (iii) the two "Non-Patent Citations" (the ISR and Written Opinion for PCT/IB2011/054000), and (iv) the "Similar Documents" listing. I grounded the four references that carry the most weight — the Intel, Cornell, General Dynamics, and Claydon/Adams references — by direct retrieval of their text (links below). I was unable to retrieve full text for Pinnaduwage (US20060191320A1), the Michigan State oscillator reference (US20080110247A1), and the "frequency division multiplexed readout" reference (US8459123B2) before exhausting my search budget; statements about those three are marked as unverified and should be confirmed against the source documents before being relied on in any filing.

---

A. Framework

Governing law. Priority is 2010-11-01; the application was filed 2011-09-13. The pre-AIA §§ 102/103 regime therefore applies, and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) supplies the obviousness standard. Nearly every cited reference published in 2005–2009 and thus qualifies as § 102(b) art against the 2009-11-01 critical date. Of the nine U.S. citations, only US20100217099A1 (published 2010-08-26) falls inside the one-year grace period; it would be § 102(a) art unless the inventors antedate it, and in any event it is a physiological-monitoring reference (Valencell/Leboeuf family) that adds little.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA). A person with a graduate degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, applied physics, or bioengineering and 2–3 years of experience in MEMS resonant sensors and optical readout, or a bachelor's degree with 5+ years of equivalent experience. The field of the invention — "label-free detection of (bio/chem) agents" via resonant microcantilevers with optical readout — was, by 2010, a crowded and mature one; the patent's own background concedes that "vibrating mechanical structures, for example, microcantilever arrays find various applications," which is a candid admission of the state of the art.

The claim-1 architecture, reduced to its core. Claim 1 recites:

1. a disposable cartridge carrying a MEMS sensor;
2. a light source coupled to the sensor;
3. a photodetector coupled to the sensor and the light source;
4. control electronics coupled to an actuation means;
5. the actuation means removably couplable to the MEMS sensor; and
6. the control electronics/user interface removably couplable to the photodetector.

The first four elements are, with near certainty, fully anticipated or obvious from the cited art standing alone. The patent's only colorable point of novelty is the last two limitations — the architectural split that locates the disposability boundary between the passive MEMS cartridge (items 1) and the reusable actuator/optics/electronics head (items 4–6). The obviousness case therefore turns on (a) how thoroughly elements 2–4 are taught, and (b) whether the "disposable/reusable" split was a patentable insight or a routine design choice.

---

B. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

Summary: the cited art squarely meets elements (b), (c), (d) and, for practical purposes, (a)'s sensor component. Elements (e) and (f) are the only genuine gaps.

---

C. Combinations that would render the claims obvious

Combination 1 (strongest on the merits): Cornell + General Dynamics + Intel

Cornell (US20060223171A1 / US7691583B2) teaches the complete measurement physics of the claim: a micromachined cantilever with an immobilized binding partner (antibody/antigen), a first resonant frequency measured before exposure and a second after, and a frequency differential as the detection basis; optical readout "by interference using a single photodetector"; an array with heterogeneous binding partners; and a processor/spectrum analyzer executing the frequency determination. It even teaches self-excitation: "The cantilever may be driven externally or by ambient noise." (Espacenet bibliographic record; US7691583B2).

General Dynamics (US20050068543A1, Angeley) teaches substituting a diffraction grating interferometer for the simple air-gap interferometer: a coherent source, a first grating, a MEMS element displaced from the grating and "systematically deflected using an electric or magnetic field," an analyte recognition material (antibodies, nucleic acids, lectins) on a grating surface, and a detector that reads the +1/−1 diffractive orders (expressly preferring non-zero orders because "the zero order does not contain any phase information"). It adds a driver circuit 1040 to modulate the MEMS at the appropriate frequency (Google Patents US20050068543A1). This is, in substance, the patent's central "embedded diffraction grating + interferometric readout" contribution.

Intel (US20050244820A1 / US7105301B2, Su et al.) supplies the closed-loop control electronics of element (d) and the actuator coupling of (e): a computer controlling a magnetic (or electric/radiative) counterbalancing force in a feedback loop with an optical detection unit, an array (FIG. 5), and a heater on the cantilever (FIGS. 6–7) (Google Patents US20050244820A1; US7105301B2).

Result. Cornell's cantilever + binding partner + single-photodetector interferometry + frequency analyzer, with GD's grating-based diffractive readout and magnetic MEMS actuation, placed under Intel's feedback control loop with a magnetic actuator and an array, yields every structural element of claims 1–3, 7–9, 11 and 12.

Motivation to combine (KSR articulated rationales):

• Same field / analogous art. All three are resonant microcantilever chemical/biomolecular sensors — not merely analogous, but identical, fields.
• Same problem, same solution type. Cornell and GD both expressly frame the objective as improving sensitivity and reliability of trace-analyte detection; Cornell states its single-photodetector interferometric scheme enables "attogram detection," and GD states irradiance-based order-monitoring "is not sensitive enough," motivating phase/grating readout. A POSITA improving a cantilever biosensor readout would combine them as a matter of course.
• Predictable result. Replacing a simple air-gap interferometer with a pitch-defined grating, and reading a non-zero diffraction order, is a predictable optical-engineering substitution with a known benefit (no large 0-order bias).
• Intel supplies the closed loop. Intel's own stated object is to apply a counterbalancing magnetic force under computer control — which is precisely the magnetic, feedback-controlled, remotely-coupled actuation of elements (d) and (e).

Combination 2 (best for the array/heater/handheld limitations): Adams + Claydon + General Dynamics

Adams (US20060257286A1) teaches a self-sensed cantilevered probe array with a chemical-sensitive coating per probe, actuated by an interface circuit, a resistive heater on each probe, and an enclosure with inlet/outlet ports in a handheld chemical detection system (Google Patents US20060257286A1; RPX listing). The enclosure-plus-handheld-reader architecture is the closest cited-art analogue to the patent's disposable cartridge/reusable head concept.

Claydon (US20050262943A1) adds magnetic (Lorentz-force) actuation of a resonant MEMS spring element using a permanent magnet, solenoid, or integrated coil (its ¶[0042]); an optical source and optical detector for reading amplitude/resonance (claims 7, 37); micro-heaters used to accelerate analyte desorption (¶[0044]); a reference spring element for differential measurement (claim 9); and multiple spring elements with different sensing materials for multi-analyte detection (claim 10) (Google Patents US20050262943A1; USPTO report text).

General Dynamics again supplies the grating-based readout and analyte-recognition layer.

Result. Adams + Claydon + GD discloses or renders obvious claims 1, 3, 4 (interference means on each vibrating structure), 7 (heater per structure), 8–9 (arrays), 11 (grating) and 12. Motivation: Claydon itself identifies "low power consumption actuators and … sensitive and low response time read out mechanisms" as the design goal and expressly contemplates a magnet that is a permanent magnet or solenoid external to the wafer, i.e., an actuator that is by construction removably couplable to the MEMS die. Adams supplies the field-deployable, enclosed package.

Combination 3 (the "disposable/reusable split" and the design-choice argument)

No single cited reference expressly recites "disposable cartridge with removable actuation coupling." The defense of the claim on this element therefore rests on two legs:

1. The applicant's own background admission. The patent's Background states the desirability of "an integrated approach that would allow disposal of certain components, whereas others remain for the next use (for example, disposable cartridges containing the MEMS sensor array)." Under KSR, a statement in the specification that identifies the problem to be solved is powerful evidence of what the POSITA would have been motivated to do. The patent thus frames the disposable-cartridge objective as a known desideratum and then claims the mere placement of that boundary.

2. Routine design choice / obvious-to-try. Where to place a disposability boundary in a system having a consumable sensor and an expensive readout head is the kind of "predictable variation" KSR treats as obvious. The prior art is replete with exactly this architecture in the adjacent diagnostics space (glucose test strips with reusable meters; lateral-flow pregnancy kits referenced in the patent's own background), and Adams' handheld reader plus replaceable probe array is a within-field analogue. The claim recites no structure for the "removable coupling" — no connector, latch, alignment feature, or seal — only the capability. A capability, without structure, is at its weakest as a point of novelty.

Combination 3 formulation: Adams (handheld reader + enclosed coated-cantilever array) + Claydon (external magnet/solenoid and integrated coil; heater; reference cantilever) + General Dynamics (grating readout), in view of the admitted desirability of disposable cartridges and the ordinary skill of modular consumer-diagnostics design.

---

D. Dependent claims

Conclusion as to the dependent claims: claims 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are, on this record, vulnerable to a straightforward § 103 attack. Claims 4, 5 and 6 — the "substrate via" and on-substrate photodetector/light-source limitations — are the strongest defensive redoubt, because I did not find those specific structures in the cited art. They should be examined against 3D-integration/through-silicon-via art (which the patent itself says was "developed for 3D hybrid chip stacking"), but that art is not on the cited-reference list.

---

E. Why a POSITA would have combined these (consolidated KSR rationales)

1. Identical field of endeavor. Every reference is a resonant micromachined cantilever/spring sensor for chemical or biological analyte detection.
2. Common, expressly stated problem. Improved sensitivity, selectivity, portability and immunity to environmental noise. GD: "[t]he present invention seeks to improve on the sensitivity, speed and/or the reliability of such prior art sensors." Cornell: attogram-level mass detection and reduced instrumentation-bandwidth limits.
3. Finite, predictable set of known solutions. The patent's own Background lists the alternatives the POSITA was choosing among — electromagnetic, piezoelectric, electric, electrostatic actuation; optical interference, piezoresistive, and capacitive readout. KSR holds that selecting among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is obvious.
4. Design incentive to modularize. Portability/field use (Adams' handheld; Claydon's low-power objective) and the acknowledged desirability of disposable sensor cartridges supply the motivation to split consumable from reusable components.
5. Reference-to-reference teaching. Intel expressly teaches closing the loop with a magnetic force under computer control; GD expressly teaches deflecting the MEMS "using an electric or magnetic field"; Claydon expressly teaches a magnet external to the wafer. These are direct teachings/suggestions that make the magnetic, remotely-coupled actuator of claim 1 obvious.
6. Reasonable expectation of success. All elements are individually known to work; the combination is a substitution of one known readout/actuation modality for another with predictable results.

---

F. Secondary considerations / rebuttal landscape

• No located evidence of unexpected results. The patent's own experimental section reports 0.1 ng/ml sensitivity with >1000:1 dynamic range in undiluted bovine serum — impressive, but the specification itself states that this is "comparable to the labeled sensing methods such as ELISA." That admission undercuts any argument that the claimed combination produced results unexpectedly superior to the prior art; the patent's own framing treats the achievement as parity, not surprise.
• No located evidence of commercial success, licensing, copying, or industry praise with a nexus to the claim. The patent is university-owned (Koç Üniversitesi) and, per the record, expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (status "Expired – Fee Related," with a listed adjusted expiration of 2032-10-06). Fee lapse is at least inconsistent with a narrative of commercial vindication, and weakens any objective-indicia defense.
• Claim-drafting exposure. Claim 1 recites "a disposable cartridge" but never a fluid chamber, inlet/outlet, seal, or any physical interface — the disposability is functional, not structural. The two removability limitations are likewise pure capability language ("can be removably coupled"). Under KSR and In re Kubin, capability without structural specificity is readily read onto the prior art's inherently separable components (external magnet; modular electronics).

---

G. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: that claims 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are obvious over the cited art (Cornell + GD + Intel / Adams + Claydon), and that element (d) of claim 1 (control electronics coupled to an actuation means) is squarely taught by Intel and Claydon.
• Moderate confidence: that claim 1 as a whole is obvious. The case depends on reading the "removably couplable" limitations onto inherently separable components and on treating the disposable/reusable boundary as a routine design choice — a reading strongly supported by the patent's own background admission but not by an express reference disclosure.
• Low confidence / requires verification: claims 4, 5 and 6 (substrate via; photodetector/light source on the substrate). I found no verified disclosure of these in the cited art, and I was unable to retrieve the full text of Pinnaduwage US20060191320A1, Michigan State US20080110247A1, and US8459123B2 before my search budget was exhausted. Those three, plus the non-U.S. family citations (Bioscale AU2003299534; Drexel WO2005043126; KIST KR100583233; Samsung KR100552696; Seiko JP4484061; the RU "electronic nose" RU2327984), should be pulled and read before any invalidity contention is finalized.
• Scope caveat. This is a hypothetical invalidity analysis of issued, presumed-valid claims. It is not a legal opinion, and it does not account for prosecution-history estoppel, the actual claim-construction positions that would be taken in litigation, or the full record of what the examiner considered (the page lists only the two PCT Non-Patent Citations — the ISR and Written Opinion of 2012-05-31 — as the applied references during prosecution).

---

H. Cross-reference check against the earlier sections

Two points already established should be carried forward rather than repeated: (i) the pre-grant publication carried a different, larger claim set (claims 58–80, with independent claim 70 to a "parallel readout sensor"), and this analysis addresses only the issued 12-claim set; and (ii) a continuation, US 9,846,115 B2 ("…for viscosity and mass detection"), sits in the same family. Neither contradicts anything above. No contradiction with the earlier "Patent summary" or "Litigation summary" sections was found.

Sources retrieved for this analysis: US9267923B2 (authoritative text) · Intel US20050244820A1 / US7105301B2 · Cornell US20060223171A1 / US7691583B2 · General Dynamics US20050068543A1 · Claydon US20050262943A1 / USPTO report · Adams US20060257286A1 / RPX insight.