US 9689849

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

Let me run a couple more targeted checks for litigation and docket activity.

US Patent 9,689,849 — Summary

Search scope note: I ran targeted queries against publicly indexed USPTO/Google Patents, Justia, and docket-aggregator content. I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity (or any litigation) naming patent 9,689,849. Searches for "9689849" plus litigation/CAFC terms returned either zero results or unrelated matters (e.g., a Netlist v. Micron docket example and an unrelated Chinese-language crystal-growth suit — neither involves this patent). Treat the litigation status as "none found," not "confirmed none exists."

---

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text provided)

Minor discrepancy: the idiyas.com badge page lists the applicant as General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY (assignee Niskayuna, NY), while the Google Patents record shows the current assignee as GE Precision Healthcare LLC following the 2025 reassignment. I interpret these as the same chain — original GE, later transferred — but flag it rather than reconcile it.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A colorimetric time indicator configured to indicate time specificity is provided. The colorimetric time indicator includes a colorimetric layer configured to be operatively coupled to a disposable medical device. The colorimetric time indicator is configured to indicate the time specificity via one or more visual indicators upon exposure to one or more external stimuli."

Independent claims — plain language

The patent has 16 claims total and two independent claims (claim 1 and claim 9), both of which are method claims.

Claim 1 — Method of making a disposable medical device with a colorimetric timer. Steps:

1. Provide a disposable medical device, limited to specified categories (cardiac monitoring/diagnostic devices; blood-circulation devices for NIBP, IBP, body temperature, oxygen saturation; hemoglobin measurement devices; anesthesia delivery devices; brain-function / level-of-hypnosis devices; devices measuring body-function parameters; or combinations).
2. Provide at least one colorimetric time indicator having a colorimetric layer that signals a "time specificity" through visual indicator(s) upon exposure to external stimuli.
3. Operatively couple the indicator to the device, with the coupled device placed in packaging providing an environment substantially free of the external stimuli (the stimuli being oxygen, carbon dioxide, or a combination).
4. Change the color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation.

Claim 9 — Method of providing a packaged colorimetric time indicator. Steps:

1. Provide a colorimetric layer configured to be operatively coupled to a disposable medical device and to indicate time specificity via visual indicator(s) on exposure to external stimuli.
2. Provide a packaging that gives the colorimetric layer an environment substantially free of those stimuli, with the layer disposed in the packaging (stimuli here being oxygen, carbon dioxide, moisture, ambient light, or combinations thereof).
3. Change the color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation.

Plain-language overview: Both independent claims are directed to methods of making/providing a disposable medical device or indicator carrying an oxygen-/CO₂-/moisture-/light-responsive dye layer that changes color over a set time ("time specificity") to show elapsed use, packaged in a stimulus-free environment. Notably, both independent claims close with a step of changing the color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation — i.e., the granted claim set ties the color-change functionality to gamma-radiation exposure (consistent with the specification's mention of gamma radiation/UV/plasma/ethylene oxide as an "activating media" for the passive→active transition).

Dependent claims (brief)

• Claims 2–8 (depend from claim 1): direct printing on the device surface; printing techniques (screen, inkjet, pad, gravure, flexographic); disposing the layer on a substrate then the substrate on the device; disposing the layer inside the device so it is exposed when opened for use; an adhesive material between indicator and device; two or more indicators tailored to different time scales; single-patient single-use device.
• Claims 10–16 (depend from claim 9): buffer agents (including reducing buffer agents; reducing saccharides, E301/E302/E303 ascorbates) to tune time specificity; a barrier layer with a determined permeability rate, made of polyester, poly(vinylidene chloride), PMMA, polycarbonate, polystyrene, polyolefin, etc.; and the colorimetric layer provided in a passive state.

Chemistry disclosed (for context)

Leuco methylene blue is the primary working dye (Example 1: methylene blue + camphor sulfonic acid reduced with tin(II) 2-ethylhexanoate in Dowanol PM to a 6.5 wt% yellow solution). Example 2 and Table 1 show induction times tunable from ~1 h to ~21 h by varying ascorbic-acid buffer and tetrabutylammonium hydroxide ratios. Alternative dyes include erioglaucine disodium salt, indigo carmine, and Fast Green FCF (all shifting light-yellow → blue/green on air contact).

Confidence / uncertainty

• High confidence on title, numbers, dates, inventors, abstract, and claim text — these come from the authoritative full patent text supplied to me.
• Moderate confidence on current assignee and adjusted expiration — these are the source's own stated assumptions of legal status, not legal conclusions.
• No authoritative basis to assert any 2026 litigation or CAFC appeal exists; my searches returned nothing, so I report that as a null finding rather than a verified negative. If you need a definitive litigation check, the USPTO PatentCenter "Assignment/Alerts" record and PACER/RECAP dockets (D. Conn./S.D.N.Y./E.D. Tex. venues common for GE medical-device cases) would be the authoritative next step — I could not query those directly here.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9689849 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned unrelated patents. Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me run additional targeted searches on litigation-specific databases.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 9,689,849

Conclusion: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,689,849 was found in the sources searched.

I ran targeted searches for the exact patent number 9,689,849 (and its variants "9689849" / "US9689849") against patent-litigation-oriented queries, including wording tied to CAFC/PACER-style dockets and case captions. The searches returned only unrelated matters that happen to implicate other patent numbers, or the patent's own Google Patents page. Specifically:

• Searches for "9689849" + litigation/lawsuit/complaint/defendant produced only:
  • A Chinese case-management entry with ID string 9689849bc9db62a44fc189b6f69b4c52 (Shandong court case (2019)鲁02民终4970号) — this is a coincidental matching number string, not U.S. Patent 9,689,849.
  • Misc. Federal Circuit / district court briefs addressing entirely different patents (e.g., the Ozmo '991 patent, NuVasive/Warsaw patents, GM design patents, AUO/LGD '629 patent, etc.) — none of which cite or assert U.S. 9,689,849.
• Searches using the patent title ("Colorimetric indicators for use in medical devices") returned only the Google Patents record for US9689849 itself, with its prosecution/assignment history — no adversary proceedings.
• Searches combining the current assignee (GE Precision Healthcare LLC / GE) with the number returned no infringement actions.

What the patent record itself shows (for context, not litigation)

The authoritative Google Patents record for US9689849B2 lists only:

• Prosecution/ownership events: filed 2013-08-14 by General Electric Co.; priority date 2013-08-14; granted 2017-06-27; assignment to GE Precision Healthcare LLC recorded 2025-05-08.
• No "Litigation" section / no lawsuits are listed on the patent page.
• Only citing documents (e.g., WO2017074886A1 – Research Triangle Institute; GB2552167A – Intray Ltd; KR102694163B1 – Samsung Medison; US20220265922A1 – Carefusion 303) and cited prior art, which are patent publications, not litigation.

Caveats and limitations

• I did not obtain a direct hit from the Unified Patents litigation portal or a PACER docket search, because live portal/docket queries either returned unrelated case lists or could not be executed within the search budget available to me. My conclusion rests on web-indexed results, which may lag or omit very recent filings.
• The absence of results is not a legal guarantee that no suit exists. To reach a defensible, definitive answer you should run:
  1. Unified Patents Portal — "Litigation" tab filtered by patent number 9689849 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist).
  2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — docket search for "9,689,849" and assignee "GE Precision Healthcare."
  3. Lex Machina / Docket Navigator / Westlaw LitAlert — patent-number lookup (these capture complaints more completely than open web indexes).
  4. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment and the ITC EDIS system (Section 337 investigations).

Summary table

If you can confirm a specific district, assignee, or product line, I can narrow a follow-up docket search accordingly.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 9,689,849 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, no derivation, per the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal; status breakdown is therefore N/A (0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied). Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record for the patent owner to hide behind and no FWD you can borrow — but also no cancellation ammunition, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel working in your favor, and no PTAB-tested claim construction. You would be the first challenger, which means both upside (fresh grounds, no estoppel) and cost (no roadmap, no free invalidity theory).

Verification performed (2026-09-29): I ran multiple queries — "9689849" IPR PTAB, "9,689,849" patent PTAB AIA trial, PTAB IPR "US 9,689,849" trial, and a title-plus-inventor/assignee query. All returned either the patent's own Google Patents / Justia / iDiYAs bibliographic pages or unrelated matters. Nothing indicates any petition was ever filed against this patent.

⚠️ False-positive warning — do not conflate these. Searches on the "849" fragment surface IPR2020-00702, Unified Patents, LLC v. IDEAHUB Inc., U.S. Patent 9,641,849** (video intra-prediction; panel: APJs Moore, Cherry, Ullagaddi; oral hearing held 2021-07-22). That is a different patent (9,641,849**, not 9,689,849) in a different technology. Any summary you find online mixing "849" and "IPR" is almost certainly that case. It has no bearing on US 9,689,849 and I am not attributing any of its outcome to this patent.

Proceedings detail

No proceeding on file — N/A

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (USPTO ODP returns an empty AIA-trial set for this patent)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no FWD exists, so no claim of US 9,689,849 has ever been canceled or sustained by the Board. I will not state a claim-level outcome I cannot source.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: No PTAB FWD exists to appeal; likewise no CAFC docket naming this patent (consistent with the litigation null finding from the prior section).
• Defensive value: None yet realized. You cannot point to a cancelation; you also cannot be met with res judicata or estoppel.

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED — none. SUSTAINED — none. UNTESTED — all of claims 1–16. Every claim (independent claims 1 and 9, plus dependents 2–8 and 10–16) stands exactly as granted on 2017-06-27. For a defendant, that is a double-edged sword. Nothing is presumptively dead, so a demand letter citing claim 1 is not sanction-bait — but the patent is also thinly tested, and its two independent claims have an unusual, potentially attackable structure worth exploiting (below).

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) is inapplicable — there is no petitioner and no privy. No IPR/PGR was ever filed, so no party is barred from raising any ground. Conversely, because no district court litigation was found either, the § 315(b) one-year bar has not been triggered by service of a complaint. Practical consequences:

• IPR is available today (9-month post-grant waiting period long passed; patent granted 2017-06-27) and may be filed at any time.
• PGR is time-barred — the 9-month PGR window closed on/about 2018-03-27. This matters a lot: see the § 112 point below.
• CBM is unavailable — this is a medical-device/chemistry patent, not a financial-services patent, and the CBM program's petition window (sunset 2020-09-16) has closed regardless.
• Full prior-art universe remains open, including art a hypothetical earlier petitioner "could have raised." There is no estoppel ceiling on you.

What an IPR can and cannot reach — the key defense insight. IPR grounds are limited to § 102/§ 103 over patents and printed publications (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). The prior-art of record provides a starting menu: US 3,954,011 (3M, Selected time interval indicating device), US 4,526,752 (Perlman, Oxygen indicator for packaging), US 5,942,438 (J&J, Chemical indicator for oxidation-type sterilization processes using bleachable dyes), US 2009/0303440 (Heacock, Disposable ophthalmic/medical apparatus with timed color change indication), US 2010/0316696 (Yao, Multi-Stage Color Activated System…), and US 2011/0137306 (Tyco, Removable ink for surgical instrument). But note what an IPR cannot do here: attack the claim language itself. Both independent claims close with the limitation "changing a color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation." That step is a prime candidate for a § 112 written-description/enablement or indefiniteness attack (gamma irradiation is a sterilization step, and the claim frames the color change as a consequence of it) and for a § 101 framing — none of which is IPR-eligible, and § 112 challenges also fell outside the now-closed PGR window. Those theories live in district court or, at best, in an ex parte reexamination-adjacent district-court posture (note: reexam is also limited to patents/printed publications and cannot address § 101/§ 112).

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner, no joinder activity, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, et al.) in the chain, no patent-owner appeal activity at the CAFC, and no parallel litigation. The patent owner — General Electric, now GE Precision Healthcare LLC (assignment recorded 2025-05-08, nunc pro tunc) — has not used the PTAB offensively or defensively on this patent. That silence is itself informative: well-asserted medical-device patents almost always attract IPR petitions, and this one has not been asserted (per the prior section) in the ~9 years since grant.

New institutional headwind to price in. Any petition you file faces 2025–2026 discretionary-denial practice. The Acting Director's 2025-03-26 memorandum ("Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management") introduced "settled expectations" as a discretionary-denial factor, and the 2025 decisions surveyed in the literature denied institution in ~90% of surveyed cases where the patent had been in force six or more years. US 9,689,849 has been in force since 2017-06-27 — over nine years — so it sits squarely in that zone. Note the policy has been in flux (a subsequent Director memorandum on institution practice, and an October 2025 "Open Letter," both surfaced in my searches), so verify the operative institution policy on the day you file — I can't confirm the current state with high confidence.

Recommended next steps

• There is no FWD to link and no disposition to quote. I explicitly decline to cite one — none exists. Any argument crafted around "claims X were canceled" would be fabricated. If a counterparty or a vendor report tells you otherwise, treat it as a number-confusion error (most likely the U.S. 9,641,849 / IPR2020-00702 mix-up flagged above).
• Verify the null finding at the source before relying on it. PTAB E2E: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ (search "9689849" under Patent Number). USPTO PatentCenter: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Application 13/966,313). PACER/RECAP for any district-court assertion that would have driven a petition — https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=9689849. The patent's own page: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9689849/en.
• If you are defending: the most promising route is a district-court § 112 / § 101 attack on the "changing a color … upon exposure to gamma radiation" limitation — it is IPR-ineligible and PGR-time-barred, so it is a theory the patent owner has never had to defend in a post-grant forum. Separately, assess divided-infringement and induced-infringement exposure: claim 1 is a method of making, and the color change is triggered by a gamma sterilizer (often a third-party contract sterilizer), not necessarily by your client — direct infringement may be difficult for the patent owner to prove from a product alone.
• If you file an IPR: file early and address the "settled expectations" / § 325(d) / General Plastic factors head-on in the petition, since the patent's age and its wholly-unexamined post-grant history cut against you discretionarily. Because there is no estoppel and no prior petitioner, you get the entire printed-publication prior-art field — build the § 103 combination from the of-record references (3M '011, Perlman '752, J&J '438, Heacock '440, Yao '696) rather than starting from scratch.
• Alternative if IPR is discretionarily denied: ex parte reexamination (Control No. via Central Reexamination Unit) remains available and carries no estoppel, though it cannot reach § 101/§ 112 — so it pairs naturally with the district-court theories above.

Confidence note: the "no proceedings" conclusion is high-confidence as to the structured ODP block, and my independent searches found no contradicting evidence. My statements about current discretionary-denial practice are moderate-confidence and time-sensitive. I have not verified anything in PACER directly.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent using the sources available to me.

Let me dig into the GE corporate restructuring and the recorded assignments more specifically.

Let me look specifically for the original inventor→GE assignment and the 2025 GE→GE Precision Healthcare recording.

Inventors

Pattern note: The author mix (three US/GE Global Research inventors + two apparent Finnish GE Healthcare inventors) is consistent with a GE Global Research / GE Healthcare collaborative filing, not a departing-inventor fire-sale pattern. I have no data on whether any of the five inventors left GE within 12 months of filing — no personnel records were retrievable — so I make no call on that specific red flag.

Original assignee

General Electric Company — named on the issued patent (assignment executed 2013-08-26; issued 2017-06-27).

• Primary line of business: diversified industrial/technology conglomerate; the relevant operating unit for this patent was GE Healthcare (medical devices — consistent with the disclosed ECG lead sets, SpO₂ probes, NMT sensors, and water traps).
• Product embodiment: GE Healthcare commercially sells exactly the device classes recited in the specification (ECG lead sets, SpO₂ probes, NMT sensors, water traps). I found no evidence that any shipping GE product embodies the granted method claims (the claims are directed to methods of making/providing a packaged colorimetric indicator, and to a gamma-radiation color-change step), so I cannot assert product-embodiment either way.
• Current status: The original assignee entity no longer exists in its historic form. GE completed a three-way breakup — GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. spun off January 2023; GE Aerospace and GE Vernova separated in 2024. The patent now sits with GE Precision Healthcare LLC, a GE HealthCare subsidiary. Note: this is a voluntary corporate separation, not a bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

Important data limitation — read before using: The authoritative Google Patents record for US 9,689,849 lists two reassignment legal events, so the Assignment Center does have records. However, I could not retrieve the underlying reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondents of record for this specific patent — my searches surfaced only the events, not the recorded instruments. I am therefore reporting the parties and recording dates I can ground, and explicitly flagging reel/frame and correspondent as unverified gaps. I will not fabricate them.

• 2013-08-26 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Chan, Kwok Pong; Jain, Sumeet; Misner, Matthew Jeremiah; Astola, Pekka Simeon; Osterberg, Johannes Harri Eemeli
  • Assignee: General Electric Company
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Contextual note (analogous, NOT confirmed for this patent): contemporaneous 2013–2015 GE-Global-Research filings were recorded through GE's in-house correspondent "General Electric Company Global Research, One Research Circle, Bldg. K1-3A59, Niskayuna, NY 12309, gpo.mail@ge.com" (e.g., reel 036185/0962, submitted by Jila Bakker). If the same pipeline handled this patent, that would be the correspondent — but I cannot tie it to this recording.
  • Context: Original inventor employment assignment (standard obligation-to-assign).

• 2025-05-08 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment, recorded nunc pro tunc ("now for then" — retroactive)
  • Assignor: General Electric Company
  • Assignee: GE Precision Healthcare LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Contextual note (analogous, NOT confirmed for this patent): GE Precision Healthcare LLC recordings from the 2019–2020 carve-out bulk transfers were filed through correspondent McCoy Russell LLP, 806 SW Broadway, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97205 (legacy-assignments document 505841857, recorded 2019-12-30), and McCoy Russell is a high-volume GE Precision Healthcare prosecution firm. Single data point; do not treat as a recurrence finding.
  • Context: Internal corporate carve-out / retroactive perfection. The "nunc pro tunc" label, plus the existence of a GE → GE Precision Healthcare "Asset Contribution and Assignment Agreement" (Master Agreement) dated 2019-01-01, recorded 2020-04-13 at reel 052381/0908, strongly suggests this patent was missed in the 2019–2020 bulk transfer and was re-recorded retroactively in 2025. This is an inference from the "nunc pro tunc" wording, not a confirmed fact.

No licensing, security-interest, release, merger, or change-of-name conveyances were found for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9689849
    2013 : Filed by GE
         : Inventors assign to General Electric
    2015 : Pre-grant publication
    2017 : Patent granted
    2019 : GE healthcare carve-out begins
    2025 : Assigned to GE Precision Healthcare

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only post-issuance transfer is to GE Precision Healthcare LLC, a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. It is not a licensing-only entity: patent-bots reports it as holding 308 issued patents across 12 law firms in the year ending 2026-Q1, which is the footprint of a large operating portfolio, not a single-purpose assertion vehicle.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Both recorded assignees are GE entities.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear (insufficient data). I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for either recording on this patent, so I cannot assess recurrence. I found one GE Precision Healthcare correspondent data point (McCoy Russell LLP, reel 051389/0288, 2019-12-30) and one context point (GE Global Research in-house, 2015). A single appearance is not a finding per the task's own rule, so I make none.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. One post-issuance transfer over roughly 12 years, with no chained LLC hops and no sub-24-month cascade.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The 2025-05-08 recording is an internal parent→subsidiary perfection; no infringement suit naming this patent was found (consistent with the prior litigation section's null finding).
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. GE did not file Chapter 7/11. The relevant event is a voluntary spin-off (GE HealthCare, Jan 2023), not a court-supervised patent sale.
7. Privateering — Not present. Transfer is to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the operating company, not to a third-party NPE asserting against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting — with a flagged caveat that this is a non-standard fit.

The chain is a plain operating-company ownership line: inventors → General Electric Company (recorded 2013-08-26) → GE Precision Healthcare LLC (recorded 2025-05-08, nunc pro tunc), i.e., a parent-to-wholly-owned-subsidiary corporate perfection, most likely retroactive cleanup for a patent omitted from the 2019-01-01 Master Agreement bulk transfer. Zero NPE signals are present, and no assertion against a competitor was found, so the NPE labels are inappropriate. Strictly, "Defensive / non-asserting" normally means termination at a defensive aggregator, which did not occur here — I select it only because the patent is demonstrably held by an operating company and is not being asserted; the alternative label, "Operating-company assertion," fails its own definition because no suit exists (no "suing actual competitors" prong). Verdict confidence is limited by the unretrieved reel/frame and correspondent fields, which should be pulled directly from the Assignment Center to close the gap.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9689849) — the underlying recorded instruments (reel/frame, execution dates, correspondent of record) were outside my retrieval reach here and are the authoritative source to confirm or revise the timeline above.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on the face of US 9,689,849. Let me search USPTO/Google Patents for each.

Now the remaining cited references:

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,689,849 B2 ("Colorimetric indicators for use in medical devices")

Scope note / methodology. I pulled the authoritative citation list from the full patent text supplied (14 references, all listed on the face of US 9,689,849) and ran confirmatory USPTO/Google-Patents/Espacenet lookups on the highest-value references. Tool budget was exhausted before I could retrieve full text for several of the later-listed references (US 2005/0113808, US 2005/0249899, US 2006/0054526, US 2006/0069305, US 2007/0017042, US 2007/0173892, US 2009/0303440, US 2011/0137306, US 2011/0316696, WO 2012/132844). For those I give the bibliographic data verbatim from the record and a description from the title/assignee/known subject matter, explicitly flagged as not fully verified against claim text. I also did not auto-correct any identifiers; all numbers are read literally.

---

1. The anticipation framework — what a § 102 reference must actually teach

Both independent claims are method claims, and both close with the same unusual limitation:

"changing a color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation." (claims 1 and 9, final step)

Everything else in the claims is a combination of well-trodden elements: a colorimetric/time indicator layer, an external stimulus selected from oxygen / CO₂ / moisture / ambient light, "time specificity" via a visual indicator, a disposable (often single-patient) medical device, and packaging that is "substantially free of the external stimuli."

The single most important finding of this analysis: none of the 14 cited references discloses the gamma-radiation color-change step. The sterilization-indicator references that are closest on chemistry all couple color change to steam/heat (US 2003/0211618) or to oxidative sterilants such as H₂O₂, ozone, peracetic acid, chlorine dioxide (US 5,942,438) — not to gamma radiation. The specification itself lists gamma radiation merely as one optional "activating media" alongside UV, plasma, and ethylene oxide. This gamma-radiation limitation is almost certainly the hook that carried the claims to allowance — and it is the pivot on which the § 102 analysis turns. Accordingly, no single cited reference fully anticipates claim 1 or claim 9 as granted; the references are relevant to individual elements and to the dependent-claim concepts.

---

2. Reference-by-reference analysis

2.1 US 3,954,011 A — "Selected time interval indicating device"

• Full citation: US 3,954,011 A; Inventor Wendell J. Manske; Assignee Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M). Priority 1973-09-24; granted 1976-05-04.
• Description: A passive elapsed-time / time-temperature indicator. A porous fluid pad feeds a dye-bearing liquid into a wick; fluid migration produces a visible color front whose position corresponds to elapsed time. Concentration of indicator fluid in the reservoir can be varied to "control the time period which a given indicating material requires to traverse a given length of wick" — i.e., an explicitly tunable time scale. Uses chemical coreactant color-forming systems (e.g., dithiooxamide + nickel rosinate).
• § 102 relevance: This is the archetypal time-specificity via visual indicator reference. It arguably anticipates the generic notion in claim 9 of "a colorimetric layer … configured to indicate a time specificity via one or more visual indicators." However it is not a medical device, not oxygen/CO₂/moisture/light-activated, and contains no gamma-radiation step — so it cannot anticipate claims 1 or 9 as a whole, and is only useful for the bare "time indicator" concept or as a § 103 base.

2.2 US 4,526,752 A — "Oxygen indicator for packaging"

• Full citation: US 4,526,752 A; Inventor Daniel Perlman. Filed 1982-12-16; granted 1985-07-02.
• Description: A tamper-evident package containing a leuco-form dye free of reducing agent (e.g., methylene blue) deposited in an oxygen-free atmosphere and sealed; any ingress of oxygen irreversibly converts the leuco dye to its colored state ("OPENED" appears). The dye is deposited "in an atmosphere free of oxygen," and the package "sealed so as to maintain the anaerobic environment."
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest prior art on the chemistry + packaging pair that claim 1 and claim 9 rely on: leuco methylene blue, oxygen as the external stimulus, and an oxygen-free packaging environment. It anticipates the element of a leuco-dye colorimetric layer that changes color on oxygen exposure within stimulus-free packaging (claims 1 and 9, in relevant part), and it prefigures the oxygen-free-packaging limitation. It does not teach a disposable medical device, time specificity, or gamma radiation.

2.3 US 5,942,438 A — "Chemical indicator for oxidation-type sterilization processes using bleachable dyes"

• Full citation: US 5,942,438 A; Inventors Antonoplos, Hui, Ebrahim, Feldman, Kohli; Assignee Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. Filed 1997-11-07; granted 1999-08-24.
• Description: A non-pH-sensitive, bleachable metallic azo dye (e.g., aluminum bordeaux RL) on an anodized-aluminum or chromate-conversion surface that permanently changes color upon exposure to an oxidation-type sterilant (chlorine dioxide, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid). The indicator may be integrated with medical devices, sterilization containers, tamper-evident latches, and sterilization tape, and may be configured to change color "after a predetermined number of exposures" — i.e., a limited-reuse indicator.
• § 102 relevance: Anticipates the concept of a colorimetric indicator integral with a medical device/package (relevant to claim 1's medical-device + visual-indicator combination) and to the "indication of use / prevention of re-use" theme that appears in the dependent-claim family. It does not teach time specificity, an oxygen/moisture stimulus, or gamma radiation — its stimulus is expressly an oxidation-type sterilant.

2.4 US 2003/0211618 A1 — "Color changing steam sterilization indicator"

• Full citation: US 2003/0211618 A1 (abandoned app.); Inventor Patel Gordhandhai Nathalal; priority 2001-05-07; published 2003-11-13.
• Description: A color-changing indicator layer of polymeric binder + isomeric indicator + an optional "controller" that influences the time and temperature required for the color change, plus an optional barrier layer (polymeric coat/laminated film, possibly wedge-shaped) that "reduce[s] diffusion of steam, thereby increasing the time required for the color change." Also discloses an adhesive layer with release liner, and printing the indicator as a number/message/barcode.
• § 102 relevance (important for the dependent claims): This reference strongly anticipates the mechanisms recited in the dependent claims:
  • the barrier layer to tune/delay the reaction time (cf. claims 13–15: "barrier layer configured to facilitate tunability of the time specificity … comprising a determined permeability rate");
  • the "controller" concept that maps functionally onto the claimed buffer agents for tunability of time specificity (claims 10–12);
  • adhesive-layer attachment (cf. claim 6) and printed indicia/messages.
• It does not anticipate independent claim 1 or 9: no disposable medical device, no elapsed-time/"time specificity" in the claimed sense, and no gamma radiation (its color change is triggered by steam/water vapor).

2.5 US 2005/0113808 A1 — "Medical device with visual indicator and related methods of use"

• Full citation: US 2005/0113808 A1; Assignee Scimed Life Systems, Inc. (Boston Scientific); filed 2003-11-25; published 2005-05-26.
• Description (from title/assignee; full text not retrieved): A medical device bearing a visual indicator plus related methods of use.
• § 102 relevance: Directly on the "medical device + visual indicator + method of use" axis of claim 1. Because I could not verify its disclosure against claim text, treat it as potentially anticipating the medical-device visual-indicator element; no basis to assert it teaches time specificity, an oxygen/CO₂ stimulus, or gamma radiation.

2.6 US 2005/0249899 A1 — "Biodegradable packaging material"

• Full citation: US 2005/0249899 A1; Inventor Peter M. Bonutti; filed 2004-05-06; published 2005-11-10.
• Description (title-based): Biodegradable packaging material.
• § 102 relevance: Bears on the packaging element common to claims 1 and 9, and conceptually on "packaging that disintegrates/is removed" (cf. the specification's protective-layer disclosure and claim 5, indicator exposed when the device is opened). Weak; not verified.

2.7 US 2006/0054526 A1 — "Medical article and method of making and using the same"

• Full citation: US 2006/0054526 A1; Inventor Jennifer Dean; filed 2004-09-13; published 2006-03-16.
• Description (title-based): A medical article and methods of making/using it.
• § 102 relevance: Potentially relevant to the "method of making a medical article" framework of claim 1 (provide device, provide indicator, couple). Low specificity; not verified.

2.8 US 2006/0069305 A1 — "Device with enhanced indication of use and prevention of re-use"

• Full citation: US 2006/0069305 A1; Assignee Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.; filed 2004-09-30; published 2006-03-30.
• Description (title-based): A device giving an enhanced indication of use and enabling prevention of re-use.
• § 102 relevance: Conceptually very close to the patent's stated purpose (single-patient/single-use enforcement; the ECG-electrode label that becomes unreadable to prevent second use). Relevant to claim 1's underlying "indication of use / prevention of re-use" purpose and to the single-patient single-use dependent claim (claim 8). Not verified against claim text.

2.9 US 2007/0017042 A1 — "Indicator system for goods and services"

• Full citation: US 2007/0017042 A1; Assignee Flexplay Technologies, Inc.; priority 2001-06-05; published 2007-01-25.
• Description (title/assignee-based): A time-/exposure-based indicator system for goods and services (Flexplay's technology line concerns oxygen-activated, limited-play color-change indicators with a defined usable window).
• § 102 relevance: Potentially relevant to the oxygen-activated, time-limited color-change concept and to packaging that holds the indicator in an inactive state until opened. Not verified; no demonstrated gamma-radiation teaching.

2.10 US 2007/0173892 A1 — "Method and an apparatus for measuring of physiological parameters"

• Full citation: US 2007/0173892 A1; Inventor Jesper Fleischer; filed 2004-03-08; published 2007-07-26.
• Description (title-based): Method/apparatus for measuring physiological parameters (patient-monitoring context).
• § 102 relevance: Background art showing monitoring devices of the type recited in claim 1's device categories (cardiac, SpO₂, etc.). It is not an indicator reference; no anticipation of claims 1–16. Included only as context for the "monitoring device" claim language.

2.11 US 2009/0303440 A1 — "Disposable ophthalmic/medical apparatus with timed color change indication"

• Full citation: US 2009/0303440 A1; Inventor Gregory Lee Heacock; priority 2006-11-30; published 2009-12-10.
• Description (title-based; full text not retrieved): A disposable medical apparatus carrying a timed color-change indication.
• § 102 relevance — likely the single most on-point reference. Its title elements map almost 1:1 onto the independent claims: disposable medical apparatus (= "disposable medical device"), timed color change indication (= "colorimetric layer … indicate a time specificity via … visual indicators upon exposure to … external stimuli"). It is the strongest candidate for a § 102 challenge to the general combination in claims 1 and 9 — subject to verification that it discloses an oxygen/CO₂/moisture/light stimulus and a stimulus-free package, and it plainly does not disclose the gamma-radiation color-change step. Because I could not pull its claim text, I flag this as the highest-priority reference for a rigorous follow-up read.

2.12 US 2011/0137306 A1 — "Removable ink for surgical instrument"

• Full citation: US 2011/0137306 A1; Assignee Tyco Healthcare Group LP; filed 2009-12-07; published 2011-06-09.
• Description (title-based): Removable ink for a surgical instrument.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to the printing/ink aspects of the dependent claims (claims 2–4: printing the indicator on a surface, incl. screen/inkjet/pad/gravure/flexographic) and to removable/disappearing markings on instruments. Not verified.

2.13 US 2011/0316696 A1 — "Multi-Stage Color Activated System to Detect Unauthorized Processing of Medical Devices"

• Full citation: US 2011/0316696 A1; Inventor Min Yao; filed 2010-06-23; published 2011-12-29.
• Description (title-based): A multi-stage color-activated system that detects unauthorized reprocessing of medical devices.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to multi-stage / multi-portion color development (cf. claim 7: "two or more colorimetric time indicators … tailored for different time scales," and the specification's multi-portion indicator of FIGS. 12–13) and to the re-use-detection theme. Not verified.

2.14 WO 2012/132844 A1 — "Packaging structure"

• Full citation: WO 2012/132844 A1; Applicant Fujifilm Corp.; filed 2011-03-31; published 2012-10-04.
• Description (title-based): A packaging structure.
• § 102 relevance: Bears on the packaging element of claims 1 and 9 and the stimulus-barrier concept. Low specificity; not verified.

---

3. Summary table

---

4. Bottom line

• All 14 references predate the 2013-08-14 priority/filing date, so every one is presumptively available as § 102(a)/(b)/(e) art (subject to any applicable exception). Several are also § 102(b) art (published more than one year before filing), e.g., US 3,954,011, US 4,526,752, US 5,942,438, US 2003/0211618, US 2005/0113808, US 2005/0249899, US 2006/0054526.
• Strongest § 102 candidates against the independent claims: US 2009/0303440 A1 (Heacock) — "disposable … apparatus with timed color change indication" — and, on the chemistry/package axis, US 4,526,752 A (Perlman) (leuco dye + oxygen stimulus + anaerobic package). Each anticipates only parts of the claim combination.
• Best § 102 candidates against dependent-claim concepts: US 2003/0211618 A1 (Patel) for barrier-layer/buffer tunability (claims 10–15) and adhesive attachment (claim 6); US 5,942,438 A and US 2006/0069305 A for use/re-use indication; US 2011/0316696 A for multi-stage/multiple indicators (claim 7).
• The decisive point: because claims 1 and 9 both require "changing a color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation," and none of the cited references teaches a gamma-radiation-triggered color change (their stimuli are oxygen, steam, or oxidative sterilants), no cited reference anticipates claims 1 or 9 in their granted form on these records. The gamma-radiation step is the distinguishing limitation, and any invalidity theory would need either (a) a non-cited reference disclosing gamma-radiation-induced color change, or (b) a § 103 combination.

Confidence & caveats:

• High confidence on the citation list, dates, assignees, and the claim language (from the authoritative full patent text).
• Moderate confidence on the descriptions of items 1–4 (backed by retrieved text) and item 11 (title-based).
• Low/unverified for items 5–10 and 12–14, where I relied on title/assignee only; I explicitly did not verify whether any of those disclose a gamma-radiation step. A definitive § 102 determination for those requires reading their full specifications and claims — the correct next step (not executable here) would be a full-text pull from USPTO Patent Center / Google Patents for each publication number above.

I'll ground the key prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me verify the remaining key references and probe the gamma-radiation limitation.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,689,849 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Technical patent analyst work product. Built on the claim breakdown and bibliographic work already completed (see "Previously generated sections"), which I treat as authoritative and will not repeat. Current date of analysis: April 26, 2026.

---

0. Scope, governing standard, and a threshold flag

Governing law. The application (US 13/966,313) was filed 2013-08-14, after the AIA first-inventor-to-file effective date (2013-03-16). Accordingly, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 governs and the references below are assessed under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). All fourteen references in the page's "Patent Citations (14)" list published more than one year before the effective filing date and are therefore prior art to the claimed methods. The four "Families Citing" documents (WO2017074886A1, GB2552167A, KR102694163B1, and US20220265922A1) post-date the priority date and are not prior art; they are relevant only as evidence of the field's later trajectory and are excluded from the § 103 combinations.

Standard. Under Graham v. John Deere / KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, I assess (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences from the claims, (3) PHOSITA level, and (4) secondary considerations. KSR permits combinations where the elements were known, the combination yields predictable results, and there was an articulated reason (design incentive, market force, "obvious to try," or teaching/suggestion/motivation).

Scope limitation (honest disclosure). Per the task instruction, I use only the references listed in the page's Prior Art section. I did not obtain verified full text for every one of the 14 references. I verified substantive content for US 3,954,011; US 4,526,752; US 5,942,438; US 2009/0303440 / US 8,388,131; and US 2011/0316696. For the remainder I rely on their title, assignee, date, and abstract-level subject matter and flag where that is the limit of my basis. I found no cited reference that expressly teaches a color change of an indicator layer "upon exposure to gamma radiation." This is the pivotal issue and I address it directly in § 8 rather than papering over it.

---

1. The claimed subject matter, distilled to elements

From the previously generated claim breakdown, the operative limitations are:

Claim 1 (method):

• (A) provide a disposable medical device limited to a recited genus (cardiac monitoring/diagnostic; NIBP/IBP/body-temp/SpO₂ blood-circulation devices; hemoglobin; anesthesia delivery; brain-function/hypnosis; body-parameter devices; or combinations);
• (B) provide ≥1 colorimetric time indicator having a colorimetric layer that indicates time specificity via visual indicator(s) upon exposure to external stimuli;
• (C) operatively couple the indicator to the device;
• (D) place the assembled device in packaging providing an environment substantially free of the external stimuli, where the external stimuli are oxygen, carbon dioxide, or a combination;
• (E) change the color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation.

Claim 9 (method): same core (B)+(D) plus (E), but the colorimetric layer need only be configured to be coupled to a disposable device, and the external stimuli are broader: oxygen, carbon dioxide, moisture, ambient light, or combinations.

Key observation for § 103: both independent claims couple two distinct color-change triggers — (i) the external stimulus (O₂/CO₂/…) that drives the time-specific indication, and (ii) gamma radiation as the trigger recited in the closing step. The specification confirms this dual role: gamma radiation is listed as an "activating media" (with UV, plasma, ethylene oxide) that "transition[s] [the indicator] from a passive state to an active state," in addition to the external stimulus. Whether (E) is (E1) a separate activation/sterilization step or (E2) the time-indicating mechanism itself changes the obviousness outcome; I analyze both readings.

---

2. PHOSITA level

A person having ordinary skill would hold at least a B.S. in chemistry, materials science, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with ~2–5 years' experience in one or more of: colorimetric/oxygen-sensitive indicators, oxygen-scavenger and barrier-film packaging, and sterilization of disposable medical devices (ISO 10993 biocompatibility, ISO 11135/11137 for EtO/gamma sterilization). This is a "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" case, so a relatively modest skill level supports obviousness under KSR.

---

3. Prior-art reference profiles (grounded)

---

4. Combination A (primary): Heacock + Perlman

This is the strongest, most cleanly motivated two-reference combination for the oxygen-triggered core of both claims.

Gap addressed by Heacock alone, not Perlman: Heacock's devices are ophthalmic/surgical, not the cardiac/SpO₂/NIBP genus of claim 1. That gap is closed by Combination C below (Min Yao expressly names SpO₂ probes and BP cuffs) or by routine selection.

---

5. Combination B: A + sterilization-indicator art (J&J '438 and Patel '618)

For element (E) "change color … upon exposure to gamma radiation," the closest cited teaching is the family of sterilization-process indicators:

• US 5,942,438 (J&J) — a bleachable dye that changes color as the article undergoes terminal sterilization; and
• US 2003/0211618 A1 (Patel) — a color-change indicator triggered by a sterilization process.

Neither reference uses gamma radiation (J&J is oxidative; Patel is steam). But both establish the general proposition that a colorimetric layer packaged with a medical article can be designed to change color as a direct consequence of the sterilization step — the analogy a POSA would apply to the last step of the claimed method. This is a "reason to modify," not a literal anticipation.

---

6. Combination C: multi-stage activation + device genus + anti-reuse motivation

• US 2011/0316696 A1 (Yao) supplies multi-stage/sequential color activation, a stimulus that includes radiation, and — critically — the claimed device genus by name ("pulse oximeter probes," blood-pressure cuffs, oxygen masks). It also shows radiation/reversion stimuli acting on the same indicator medium.
• US 2006/0069305 A1 (Boston Scientific) and US 2005/0113808 A1 (Scimed) supply the anti-reuse / visual-indicator-on-medical-device motivation that the '849 specification itself recites (preventing cross-contamination and HAI).
• US 3,954,011 (3M) supplies the selectable-time, sealed, color-change elapsed-time label concept and the idea that the interval is engineered by diffusion control — which corroborates claim 13/14 (barrier layer with "determined permeability rate").
• US 2007/0017042 A1 (Flexplay) supplies an independent time-based indicator system.

---

7. Motivation to combine (articulated under KSR)

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the above with a reasonable expectation of success for at least these reasons:

1. Same field, common problem. All references address indicating use/expiry/exposure of a packaged article; the '849 background frames the problem identically (indicia that a single-use device has exceeded its use time, to control infection). Heacock and Boston Scientific state the identical infection-control objective verbatim in substance.
2. Predictable combination of known elements. Coupling (i) a known oxygen-activated leuco-dye time indicator (Heacock/Perlman) to (ii) a known disposable medical device and (iii) a known oxygen-free barrier package yields nothing more than the expected sum of known functions — the KSR paradigm.
3. Design incentives / market forces. Single-patient-use is a regulatory and market trend for ECG leads and SpO₂ probes; making those devices self-limiting is a predictable design choice. Yao's enumeration of SpO₂ probes and BP cuffs as candidate devices confirms the selection was within ordinary skill.
4. "Obvious to try" with a finite, predictable set of options. Tuning the time to color change by scavenger amount (Heacock's Iron(II) carbonate) or by a barrier's diffusion rate (Heacock's wax; 3M's sealed wick) is exactly the claim-10/13/14 strategy; Heacock teaches the variables and their direction of effect.
5. Sterilization is inherent in the manufacturing context. A POSITA making a sterile, packaged, single-patient-use device would sterilize it, and gamma (cobalt-60) is a standard, well-known terminal sterilization modality for such devices by 2013. Placing a dye-bearing label on a device before terminal sterilization is wholly conventional. See § 8 for how this drives element (E).

---

8. The gamma-radiation limitation — the pivotal issue

Both independent claims close with "changing a color of the colorimetric layer upon exposure to gamma radiation." This is the single limitation I could not map to any cited reference, and it is where the patent most plausibly survives.

Reading 1 — gamma is a distinct activation step (most consistent with the spec). The specification states the indicator transitions passive→active upon "activating media, such as… gamma radiation, ultraviolet radiation, plasma, ethylene oxide… in addition to the external stimulus." On this reading, (E) is a sterilization/activation step performed on the packaged device, and the time-specific indication is still the O₂/CO₂ reaction.

• Obviousness argument: A POSITA assembling a packaged, sterile, single-patient-use device would necessarily select a terminal sterilization method; gamma was a standard, known choice for exactly this class of product. If the dye layer is present during gamma sterilization, a radiation-induced color change of a leuco dye is a predictable consequence — leuco dyes are well known to be sensitive to ionizing radiation and light. The step would therefore be an inherent/expected result of a conventional, obligatory manufacturing step. This is the examiner's most likely line, and it is a strong one if the "gamma sterilization is standard" record is made.
• Counter: The cited art (J&J '438 oxidative; Patel '618 steam; Yao's radiation used as a reversion stimulus) does not expressly teach that gamma produces the color change, and none ties gamma to the time-specific dye of the '849. If the applicant can show the gamma-induced change is unexpected (e.g., gamma bleaches/activates the layer in a way that then enables the O₂-timed change, or the gamma step must be sequenced after the dye is deposited), a non-obviousness argument via unexpected results is available.

Reading 2 — gamma is itself the time-indicating mechanism. Then the claim is poorly supported: the entire specification's timing data (Table 1: induction 1–21 h) is oxygen-based, not gamma-based. On this reading, claim 1/9 would face § 112(a) enablement/written-description exposure, and separately the cited art would not render it obvious — but the claim would also be of doubtful validity for reasons outside § 103. I flag this as a claim-construction fork that materially changes the answer.

Bottom line on (E): On the record of the fourteen cited references alone, element (E) is the only limitation not squarely met or suggested, and the combination cases in §§ 4–6 do not close it. A fully defensible § 103 rejection would need one additional piece of art (a gamma-radiation-sensitive colorimetric indicator/dosimeter, e.g., a radiochromic or radiation-bleaching leuco-dye indicator) to supply (E) explicitly — and I did not locate such a reference within the cited list. I therefore cannot assert, on the cited art alone, that claims 1 and 9 as granted are obvious; but I can assert that every other limitation is met or suggested, and the gamma step is highly vulnerable given gamma's standard status in device sterilization.

---

9. Dependent claims — these are the weakest, and largely obvious

Because the independent claims carry the gamma limitation, the dependents inherent to it remain vulnerable, but the dependents' added features map almost one-to-one onto the cited art, meaning the added subject matter is clearly obvious even where the parent may not be:

Notably, claim 12's express recitation of "reducing saccharides (…glucose…)" is literally the glucose/NaOH dye formulation in Heacock — an unusually tight correspondence that strongly supports obviousness of that dependent.

---

10. Secondary considerations / defenses

1. Long-felt need / failure of others (Graham factor 4). The '849 background recites a need for self-evident use-time indicia and reliance on manuals. This cuts against patentability of the core: Heacock (published 2009) already addressed precisely that need for disposable/limited-use medical devices, so the "need" was already met by prior art before the 2013 filing. A nexus between any alleged success and the gamma feature specifically would be required.
2. Unexpected results. The only credible non-obviousness foothold is the gamma-radiation color change (§ 8): if the applicant can show that co-deploying the O₂-timed leuco dye with gamma sterilization produced an unexpected activation/color behavior not predictable from Heacock/Perlman/J&J/Patel, that could rebut the KSR rationale for element (E).
3. Teaching away. Not evident. If anything, Heacock teaches toward keeping the dye out of oxygen and away from degradation, which is neutral-to-supportive of the claimed packaging.
4. Prosecution history. The examiner apparently considered (and the patent issued over) this cited art — a fact entitled to some weight but not dispositive, since the cited set appears not to have squarely addressed the gamma step. The four "Families Citing" documents and the third-party citations suggest ongoing interest but provide no validity inference.

---

11. Verdict and conclusions

• Claim 1 and Claim 9 (as granted): On the fourteen cited references alone, a prima facie § 103 case is strong for every limitation except the closing "changing a color … upon exposure to gamma radiation" step. If (E) is construed as an activation/sterilization step inherent in making a sterile packaged single-use device (Reading 1), a § 103 rejection is sustainable by adding evidence that gamma sterilization was a standard, conventional modality — the result (a radiation-induced color change of a leuco dye) being predictable. If (E) is construed as the time-indicating mechanism (Reading 2), the cited art does not anticipate or render it obvious, but the claim then faces serious § 112 support problems of its own.
• Best combination for the core: Heacock (US 2009/0303440 / US 8,388,131) + Perlman (US 4,526,752), optionally + US 3,954,011 (3M), + US 2011/0316696 (Yao) to supply the claimed device genus (SpO₂ probes, BP cuffs) and multi-stage activation, and + US 5,942,438 (J&J) / US 2003/0211618 (Patel) to bridge color change to the sterilization step. Motivation: identical field and problem (infection control for single-use devices), predictable combination of known elements, design incentive to make ECG lead-sets/SpO₂ probes self-limiting, and "obvious to try" tuning of time specificity via scavengers and barrier/diffusion control.
• Dependent claims 2–8 and 10–16: Individually, the added subject matter is obvious over the cited art (see § 9), with claim 12 (glucose/ascorbate) and claim 16 (passive dye) being especially exposed given Heacock's near-identical disclosure.

Confidence: High for the Heacock/Perlman/J&J mapping (verified text). Moderate for claims relying on the sterilant-indicator references (verified at the teaching level, not full text). Low/insufficient for the gamma limitation — no cited reference supplies it, and I expressly decline to assert obviousness of that step on the present record.

---

Caveats and required next steps

• I could not retrieve full text for US 2005/0113808 A1, US 2005/0249899 A1, US 2006/0054526 A1, US 2006/0069305 A1, US 2007/0017042 A1, US 2007/0173892 A1, US 2011/0137306 A1, US 2003/0211618 A1, and WO 2012/132844 A1; my treatment of these rests on title/assignee/subject matter and is flagged as such.
• The decisive open item is whether a gamma-radiation-responsive colorimetric indicator existed in the art by 2013 (radiochromic/leuco-dye dosimeter art). If such a reference exists outside the cited list, it would likely complete a § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 9. I recommend a targeted search of CPC G01T 1/04/G01T 1/06 (radiation dosimeters/indicators) and A61L 2/28 / G01N 31/226 before finalizing any invalidity position.
• Nothing here constitutes a legal conclusion on validity, infringement, or the enforceability of U.S. 9,689,849.