US 9752933

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any CAFC 2026 litigation.

Let me run more targeted searches for litigation and USPTO records.

Let me check for any PTAB or district court proceedings involving this specific patent.

US 9,752,933 B2 — Verified Summary

Sourcing note: The primary source below is the full patent text supplied (Google Patents page for US9752933B2, fetched 2026-09-24), which is authoritative and takes precedence over web results. My live searches for USPTO/CAFC records on this number returned no case-specific hits (detailed under "Litigation check" below). Where I could not confirm something independently, I flag it.

---

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"An optical emission spectrometer system includes a light source and a dichroic beam combiner. The light source emits first light in a first direction and second light in a second direction different from the first direction. The dichroic beam combiner receives the first light via a first light path and the second light via a second light path, reflects a portion the first light into an entrance aperture of a light detection and measurement apparatus, and transmits a portion of the second light into the entrance aperture, enabling analysis and measurement of both first and second light characteristics simultaneously. The portion of the first light reflected into the entrance aperture predominately has wavelengths in a first range of wavelengths and the portion of the second light transmitted into the entrance aperture predominately has wavelengths in a second range of wavelengths, different from the first range of wavelengths."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — System (light source + dichroic combiner + movable member).
A spectrometer system has a light source producing first light in one direction (e.g., axially off an ICP torch) and second light in a different direction (e.g., radially). A single dichroic beam combiner collects both paths and sends them into one spectrometer entrance aperture at the same time: it reflects a portion of the first light and transmits a portion of the second light into the aperture, where the reflected part is predominantly in a first wavelength band and the transmitted part is predominantly in a different second band. The claim additionally requires a movable member that carries three selectable elements — the dichroic beam combiner, a mirrored section, and a transparent section — any one of which can be moved into both light paths.

Claim 11 — System (no movable member; ICP light source).
The same core optical arrangement as claim 1 (two-direction light source + dichroic combiner reflecting part of the first light and transmitting part of the second into the aperture, in predominantly different wavelength bands), but without the movable member, and with the express limitation that the light source is an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) light source.

Claim 14 — Apparatus (means-plus-function style).
An apparatus defined by functional blocks: optical directing means steering the first-direction light along a first path and the second-direction light along a second path to the same single light detection and measurement apparatus; optical filtering means that simultaneously filter the two beams into predominantly different wavelength ranges; and optical combining means that merge the filtered beams before the single detector apparatus. It also requires a movable member movable among first/second/third positions respectively corresponding to the optical filtering means, a mirrored section, and a transparent section, to place one of the three into the two light paths.

Claim 19 — System (plasma source + mirror sets + mode selector).
A plasma light source emits first light in one direction and second light substantially perpendicular to it. A first set of mirrors routes the first light along a first path; a second set of mirrors routes the second light along a second path. A movable mode selector with multiple mode sections is positioned so the two paths intersect one section at a time. The sections are: (a) a dichroic beam combiner reflecting predominantly a first wavelength range of the first light into the aperture and transmitting predominantly a second, different range of the second light into the aperture (enabling simultaneous analysis of both); (b) a mirrored section reflecting all wavelengths of the first light into the aperture and reflecting all wavelengths of the second light away (axial-only analysis); and (c) a transparent section transmitting all wavelengths of the second light into the aperture and transmitting all wavelengths of the first light away (radial-only analysis).

Selected dependent claims: 2–3 (mirrored/transparent section behavior); 4 & 12 (first direction along the axis, second substantially perpendicular); 5–8 (first/second ranges split by a predetermined wavelength value, e.g. about 500 nm, in either polarity); 9 & 13 (first and second sets of mirrors); 10 & 16 (monochromator or polychromator plus associated detector); 15, 17, 18, 20 (mirror/transparent behavior; dichroic reflecting sub-"nominal" wavelengths and transmitting above, or the reverse; and the 500 nm split).

---

Litigation check (USPTO / CAFC 2026)

• No Federal Circuit 2026 appeal, docket entry, or PTAB proceeding tied to US 9,752,933 was returned by my searches. I did not find any case naming this patent.
• What the searches did surface were unrelated Agilent appellate matters — e.g., Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (cert. denied) and a June 11, 2025 Agilent enablement/anticipation decision referenced in a Japanese IP-association commentary, with the Supreme Court denying the petition on March 30, 2026. These do not involve 9,752,933 and should not be conflated with it.
• Other "933" hits (e.g., Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive over US 6,945,933; various Hatch-Waxman "8,377,933" entries) are different patent numbers and are excluded per the instruction not to auto-correct or cross-map identifiers.

Uncertainty / caveats

• Absence of litigation is not proven. I could not directly query PACER, Docket Navigator, or the USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB APIs within my tool limits; my conclusion that no 2026 CAFC docket exists for this patent is based on surface web searches only. Treat it as "not found," not "confirmed none."
• Google's "adjusted expiration 2033-01-07" and "Active" status are Google Patents assumptions, explicitly disclaimed by the source, not legal conclusions.
• Some typographical errors appear in the granted claim text (e.g., claim 4 "along art axis"; claim 14 "single lioht detection and measuremc apparatus"; claims 17/18 "nominal value"; claim 20 "predetermined, wavelength value"). Per the strict rule, I have not silently corrected these; they are reproduced as they appear.
• Assignee address differs across the document (Santa Clara, CA vs. Loveland, CO); Google lists the current assignee simply as "Agilent Technologies Inc." I did not independently verify the current recorded owner.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9752933.

Let me search more specifically on litigation databases.

Let me try a few more targeted sources.

Findings: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,752,933

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation (district court, Federal Circuit, PTAB, or ITC) involving U.S. Patent No. 9,752,933.

What the patent is

U.S. Patent No. 9,752,933 ("Optical emission system including dichroic beam combiner"), assigned to Agilent Technologies, Inc., lists inventors Michael Bolles, Yin Sheng Sun, Lindsay Buck, and Glyn Russell. It is a continuation of U.S. Application Ser. No. 13/460,308 (issued as U.S. 9,279,722), with an assumed priority date of April 30, 2012, and a further continuation issuing as U.S. 10,401,221. It covers a spectrometer that simultaneously views axial and radial ICP emission via a dichroic beam combiner, plus a movable mode selector (dichroic / mirrored / transparent sections). Its classification area (G01J 3/443, G01B 9/02) and its transaction history show only prosecution, continuation, and assignment activity — no enforcement activity.

Search results — no litigation matches

I searched multiple litigation-oriented sources (Unified Patents portal, PACER/justia-style dockets, Docket Navigator-derived documents, RPX/PTAB records, and general web). No case, complaint, IPR/PGR, or appeal listing 9,752,933 as an asserted or challenged patent was returned.

Important cautions — near-miss numbers that are NOT this patent

Several search hits contained similar-looking identifiers that must not be attributed to this patent:

1. "the '293 patent" in Tetra Tech v. Pavemetrics (C.D. Cal., e.g., No. 8:21-cv-... / 810363) — This is U.S. Patent No. 10,362,293 ("system for assessing a railway track bed"). Different number entirely. Not 9,752,933.

2. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00913) — the asserted "'933 patent" there is U.S. 9,763,933 (a different patent). Not 9,752,933.

3. Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive ("the '933 patent") — that is U.S. 6,945,933. Not 9,752,933.

4. CARF administrative tax proceeding (Brazil, no. 9752933) — an unrelated tax docket number, not a U.S. patent.

5. PatentLeaderboard listing — merely reports 9,752,933 in an inventor portfolio summary; it contains no litigation information.

I am flagging these because the strict instruction is to interpret identifiers literally and not to return results for similar numbers.

Caveats on confidence

• My conclusion is based on the sources reachable through the searches above. I could not directly query subscription databases (Docket Navigator, LexisNexis, RPX Insight, Westlaw) or confirm a complete PACER docket sweep in this session.
• It is possible that (a) a recently filed complaint, (b) a settlement that produced no published opinion, or (c) a foreign (e.g., CN/GB family member) proceeding exists but is not captured in the free/public sources searched. I cannot rule these out with certainty.

Recommendation: If you need a definitive negative, confirm via a paid full-text litigation database (Docket Navigator / LexisNexis / Westlaw) keyed to patent number 9,752,933, and cross-check the CN103376158B and GB2501802B family members for foreign enforcement. Based on the public evidence available to me, however, no litigation is known.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US9752933: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured feed returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches (Google Patents family/legal-status page, PTAB decision and petition repositories indexed by Docket Alarm, and general news/legal-commentary sources) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no FWD, and no Federal Circuit appeal naming US9752933. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB, so it is neither "hardened" nor "narrowed." All 20 claims stand exactly as issued on 2017-09-05. That cuts both ways — there is no IPR roadmap, no prior-art record, and no § 315(e) estoppel to exploit, but also no claim has been canceled, so any demand letter built on claims 1–20 has an intact statutory presumption of validity that can only be attacked through a fresh petition you would have to fund yourself.

---

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, ground, or disposition to itemize. I will not manufacture one. For completeness, here is what I affirmatively checked and what those checks did not show:

• No AIA trial on US9752933. The prompt's structured block — the canonical ODP list — is empty, and nothing in web search contradicts it.
• No AIA trial on the family members either. US9279722B2 (the parent, filed 2012-04-30), US10401221B2 (the continuation child, filed 2017-08-17), GB2501802B, CN103376158B, and CN107505045B likewise produced no PTAB hits. Family record: US9752933B2.
• Don't confuse this patent with Agilent's other PTAB history. Thermo Fisher Scientific challenged Agilent patents in IPR2018-00298, IPR2018-00299, and IPR2018-00313, but those target U.S. Patent Nos. RE45,386 and 7,230,232 (mass-spectrometry art — triple quadrupole / ion optics), not the optical-emission dichroic-combiner family. Agilent was the patent owner there, and the Board instituted in IPR2018-00313 on all challenged claims and all grounds (institution decision). That is a different patent family and gives you no estoppel or claim-cancellation leverage against US9752933. I found no indication the optical-emission family was ever in that fight.
• No identified district-court assertion of US9752933. The only Agilent enforcement activity I located is Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Axion BioSystems, Inc., C.A. No. 23-198-CJB (D. Del.), which asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,192,752, 7,468,255, 8,026,080 and 9,625,472 — cell-impedance/real-time cell-analysis patents, again unrelated to the spectrometer family. Caveat: absence of a hit in my searches is not proof of non-assertion; confirm on the ODP and PACER/RECAP before relying on it.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: 20/20 UNTESTED. No claim of US9752933 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. Claims 1–13 (the system claims; claim 1 recites the movable member with dichroic beam combiner / mirrored section / transparent section) and claims 14–18 (means-plus-function apparatus claims) and claims 19–20 (mode-selector claims) are all live. Related subject matter is triple-stacked across three Agilent US patents sharing the same 2012-04-30 priority and the same specification — US9279722, US9752933, and US10401221. The '933 patent is, per its face, subject to a terminal disclaimer over the parent, so its enforceable term runs with the family (advisory: Google Patents lists an adjusted expiration of 2033-01-07, reflecting the 252-day PTA recited on the cover). Practically: killing one member of this family does not clear the field — a challenger should expect the analysis to be run three times if the family is asserted.

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate, for now. Because no IPR/PGR was ever filed on this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds nobody with respect to US9752933. Any defendant today is free to raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, on any prior-art patent or printed publication, before the PTAB — including art that was before the examiner — subject only to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of an infringement complaint on that defendant, and to the discretionary-denial regime currently in force. Conversely, if you do file and lose, you personally forfeit in litigation every ground you raised or reasonably could have raised; with no prior petitioner to piggyback on, you own that risk alone.

Pattern signals. (1) No serial-petitioner pattern — there is no repeat challenger on this patent because there is no challenger at all. (2) The patent owner, Agilent, is an experienced PTAB participant on both sides — most notably as patent owner against Thermo Fisher in the RE45,386 / 7,230,232 IPRs. It is a sophisticated, well-counseled owner that will defend a valuable family. (3) No defensive aggregator in the chain — I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar entity involved with this patent. (4) The absence of any IPR is consistent with a patent that has not been asserted against a deep-pocketed competitor in a high-stakes case — an IPR is usually a litigation-driven event, and this family appears to have stayed out of that arena.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and you have not yet been served: a pre-suit IPR is available to you now, with no § 315(b) clock running. Given that no examiner-confirmed record of validity exists beyond prosecution, a prior-art search should begin with the references already cited on the face of the patent (the family cites ~135–223 references, including US 3,704,061 (Travis, "Wavelength selective mirror systems"), US 4,795,256 (Krause, dual-wavelength spectrophotometry), US 5,483,337 (Barnard, "Spectrometer with selectable radiation from induction plasma light source"), and US 5,642,190 (Thermo Jarrell Ash, "Dual-axis plasma imaging system")) plus US 9,151,672 (Agilent's own later optical-absorption dichroic combiner/splitter, filed 2013-11-21) — noting that any art you intend to rely on must itself be a patent or printed publication that qualifies under § 102.
• If you are served with a complaint asserting US9752933: the § 315(b) clock starts on service, and the current PTAB practice compresses the practical window well below 12 months. The statutory milestones to plan around once a petition is filed are: patent owner preliminary response due ~3 months from the notice of filing date; institution decision due within 3 months of the POR (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)); and, if instituted, FWD due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause.
• Verify the negative before you rely on it. I recommend confirming directly against the primary sources rather than this summary: the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions page, the PTAB E2E / PTActs docket portal, USPTO Patent Center for the '933 reexamination certificate status, and CourtListener plus PACER/RECAP for any district-court assertion. If a demand letter has been sent to you or a third party in your supply chain, that is the single most likely event that would trigger a filing I cannot see from public search results.
• Say it plainly in any client memo: the defensible statement today is "no PTAB activity on file for US9752933," not "this patent has survived IPRs." The claims are untested; the presumption of validity is intact; and the defensive posture depends entirely on art you develop yourself.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9752933. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and related entities.

I'll research the key prior art references cited in US 9,752,933 to provide detailed analysis. Let me search for the most relevant references.

Let me gather details on additional key cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,752,933 B2

Scope / method note. I worked from the authoritative Google Patents full text of US 9,752,933 B2 (supplied) plus targeted web searches on the individual cited references. I was not able to issue a live structured query against the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text search API within this session, so the "citation set" I analyze below is the one printed on the face of the patent document (Google's "Patent Citations" / "Citations" tables). Treat this as an analysis of the front-page citation record, which is what the task asks for, rather than a fresh examiner-style search. Patent numbers and identifiers are reproduced literally and are not auto-corrected.

---

A. Threshold point: several "citations" are NOT prior art

Before mapping §102, it is critical to separate genuine prior art from citations that cannot legally anticipate 9,752,933:

Everything else in the citation tables (the ~135 "Citations" and the 223-entry "Patent Citations" list, less the family entries) is fair game as potential prior art. Below I tier them by relevance.

---

B. Tier 1 — Most relevant prior art

These are the references that most directly touch the core inventive concept: (i) an ICP/plasma source viewed in two directions, (ii) a single spectrometer/detector, and (iii) a wavelength-selective combining or selecting element in the beam path.

1. US 5,483,337 A — Barnard

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,483,337, "Spectrometer with selectable radiation from induction plasma light source," inventors Thomas W. Barnard and Michael W. Hucks; assignee Perkin-Elmer Corp. (per related EP 0708324 A2). Publication/grant date 1996-01-09; filing date 1994-10-19.
• Description: An atomic emission spectrometer with an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) generator. A first mirror sits on the longitudinal axis to receive axial radiation; a chain of lateral mirrors collects radial radiation and routes it to the same first mirror. The first mirror is rotated between a first orientation (reflects axial radiation into the detector) and a second orientation (reflects radial radiation into the detector) — i.e., a selectable, single-detector, dual-viewing architecture. It expressly notes that selecting either higher accuracy (radial) or higher sensitivity (axial) previously required changing the ICP mounting or using two spectrometers (which is costly). (Source: Google Patents US5483337A; EP 0708324 A2 / EPO Global Patent Index.)
• Potential §102 mapping:
  • Claim 1 — relevant to the light source emitting first light in a first direction and second light in a second direction, and to a movable/rotatable selection element, but fails the "dichroic beam combiner … reflect a portion of the first light … transmit a portion of the second light" and "different first/second wavelength ranges" elements. → does not fully anticipate claim 1; better framed as §103 art.
  • Claim 19 — potentially anticipates the IPC/plasma-source + first-mirror-set + second-mirror-set architecture and the concept of a movable element selecting a viewing mode. However, claim 19 requires a mode selector having three distinct sections (dichroic beam combiner, mirrored section, transparent section); Barnard's rotating mirror is a single reflector, not a three-section selector, and has no dichroic wavelength-splitting section. → no complete anticipation; strong §103 combination candidate (e.g., with a dichroic-reference such as DE1291533 or US3704061).
  • Claim 11 — no: Barnard does not disclose simultaneous reflection of one band + transmission of another band.
• Caveat: I did not retrieve the full Barnard claim set or its drawing figures in this session; the mapping above is based on the published abstract and description.

2. US 5,642,190 A — Krupa et al. (Thermo Jarrell Ash Corp.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,642,190, "Dual-axis plasma imaging system for use in spectroscopic analysis," inventors Robert J. Krupa, Edward E. Owen, et al.; assignee Thermo Jarrell Ash Corp. Publication/grant date 1997-06-24; filing date 1995-09-01.
• Description: A dual-axis plasma imaging system. A first lens images the axial emission component onto the primary aperture of a spectrometer; a second lens/fiber-optic system in a secondary (≈90°-offset) path images the radial component onto the same primary aperture via a folding mirror. When the folding mirror is stowed, axial light is measured; when rotated into the principal path, it blocks the axial beam and reflects the radial (fiber-delivered) beam into the aperture. An alternative embodiment uses two separate spectrometers, and another uses a single spectrometer with two entrance apertures plus an aperture flag/shutter to select axial or radial. The patent notes a "single spectrometer views all wavelengths of the emission, whether emitted axially or radially." (Source: Google Patents US5642190A; Justia; EveryPatent.)
• Potential §102 mapping:
  • Claim 11 — discloses an ICP/plasma source, axial and radial emission, and a single spectrometer. But the selection is by a folding mirror/shutter (spatial blocking), not a dichroic element reflecting one wavelength band and transmitting another. → does not anticipate claim 11 (missing the wavelength-band-splitting element).
  • Claim 19 — discloses the two-direction plasma source, a first imaging path, a second imaging path, and a movable element (folding mirror) intersecting the paths. It arguably discloses the functional result of the "mirrored section" (reflecting all wavelengths of one beam into the aperture and the other away). It does not disclose a three-section mode selector with a dichroic beam combiner section and a transparent section. → partial; not complete anticipation of claim 19; strong §103 art.
  • Claim 1 / Claim 14 — not anticipated (no dichroic combiner; no three-position movable member).
• Caveat: Same as above — full claim text of US5642190 was not retrieved; analysis rests on the abstract/description.

3. US 4,795,256 A — Krause et al. (Photon Technology International, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,795,256, "Dual-wavelength spectrophotometry system," inventors Andrew W. Krause, Charles G. Marianik, Ronald J. Kovach; assignee Photon Technology International, Inc. Publication/grant date 1989-01-03; filing date 1987-03-09.
• Description: A dual-wavelength spectrophotometer in which a single polychromatic source is split (by a rotating reflective chopper) into two monochromatic beams via two monochromators, and the two beams are recombined into a single dual-wavelength beam by a coarse grating acting as a beam combiner ("Coarse grating 26 acts as a beam combiner which …"). It emphasizes recombining two wavelength-differentiated beams for common downstream optics/sample illumination. (Source: PubChem patent record US-4795256-A; Google Patents US4795256A.)
• Potential §102 mapping:
  • Claim 14 — relevant to the "optical combining means to combine the filtered first and second light prior to the single light detection and measurement apparatus." It discloses wavelength-differentiated recombination, and it uses a grating (a dispersive/dichroic-type combiner). However, it is a fluorescence-excitation spectrophotometer, not a two-direction plasma-emission system, and it lacks the recited movable member with optical-filtering/mirrored/transparent sections. → does not fully anticipate claim 14; §103 art, particularly for the "combining means" limitation.
  • Claim 1 / 11 / 19 — no.
• Caveat: A "beam combiner" made of a coarse grating is not literally the claimed "dichroic beam combiner"; whether it would be read to anticipate turns on claim construction.

4. US 2003/0067600 A1 — Curtiss (later granted as US 6,954,271 B2)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0067600 A1, "System and method for multiplexing inputs into a single spectrometer," inventor Brian Curtiss. Published 2003-04-10; filed 2001-10-10; granted as U.S. Patent No. 6,954,271 B2 on 2005-10-11.
• Description: A spectrometer (reflective grating) configured with a plurality of entrance apertures, at least one offset from the grating major axis, so that multiple inputs can be measured in a single spectrometer (the problem statement expressly notes that conventional designs "require a separate spectrometer … for each required simultaneous spectrum measurement"). (Source: Google Patents US20030067600A1; Justia US20030067600; Justia US6954271.)
• Potential §102 mapping:
  • Claim 11 — relevant to the "single light detection and measurement apparatus" concept (a single spectrometer that can accommodate more than one light input), but it does not disclose a dichroic beam combiner, the two-direction light source, or the specific "reflect a portion of the first light / transmit a portion of the second light" architecture. → no full anticipation; §103 art.
  • Claim 14 — the functional "single light detection and measurement apparatus" is disclosed; the "optical filtering/combining means" and movable-member elements are not. → §103 art.

5. US 5,477,321 A — Bayer Corporation

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,477,321, "Dual beam tunable spectrometer," assignee Bayer Corporation. Publication/grant date 1995-12-19; filing date 1994-08-31.
• Description: A dual-beam tunable spectrometer (two beams directed into a common spectrometer). (Per the citation table on the '933 patent.)
• Potential §102 mapping: Relevant to combining two beams into one spectrometer (claim 14's combining means; claim 1/11's single apparatus). Limited to the dual-beam concept; no ICP two-direction source and no dichroic combiner disclosed on the available record. → §103 art. (Note: I did not retrieve the full text of US5477321 in this session; description is from the citation title only.)

---

C. Tier 2 — Dichroic / wavelength-selective combining art (relevant to the "dichroic beam combiner" element)

These predate the '933 priority date (2012-04-30) and are relevant to the wavelength-selective split/combine limitation of claims 1, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19.

---

D. Tier 3 — ICP / OES background art (relevant to the "inductively coupled plasma light source" and axial/radial-viewing limitations)

---

E. Summary table — strongest candidates and claim overlap

---

F. Anticipation vs. obviousness — important framing

None of the cited references, on the record available here, appears to disclose all elements of any independent claim (1, 11, 14, or 19) in a single reference. The pivotal limitation of the '933 claims is the single dichroic beam combiner that simultaneously (a) reflects a portion of the first-direction light in a first wavelength band and (b) transmits a portion of the second-direction light in a different second wavelength band, into one entrance aperture. The dual-view references (Barnard '337, Krupa '190) select one view at a time (mirror/shutter) rather than combining wavelength bands simultaneously, and the dichroic references (Zeiss DE 1 291 533, Travis '061, Photon Technology '256) are not two-direction plasma-emission systems. Accordingly:

• These references are strongest as a §103 obviousness combination — e.g., Barnard '337 or Krupa '190 (dual axial/radial viewing into one spectrometer) in view of a dichroic beam combiner teaching (DE 1 291 533, US 3,704,061, or US 4,795,256).
• They are weaker as standalone §102 anticipation references.

I am flagging this expressly rather than overstating anticipation, because asserting §102 requires a single reference disclosing every claimed element arranged as claimed.

---

G. Explicit uncertainty / caveats

1. Search-tool limits. I could not run a live, fielded USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text (PatFT) query in this session; my citation universe is the front-page citation record as printed by Google Patents, and my descriptions of the references rely on their published abstracts/descriptions found via web search. Full claim-by-claim element charts would require pulling each reference's complete specification and claims from USPTO/Espacenet.
2. Unretrieved details. For US 5,477,321, DE 1 291 533, US 3,704,061, US 2010/0097613, and US 6,424,416, I did not retrieve full text; descriptions are based on the citation titles/dates only and should be verified before any anticipation assertion.
3. Non-prior-art citations. As detailed in Section A, US 9,279,722 B2 (parent), US 10,401,221 B2 (child), US 9,151,672 B2 (later Agilent patent), and the CN/GB family members are not prior art to 9,752,933 and must not be treated as §102 references.
4. No litigation. Consistent with the earlier-generated sections, I found no litigation, PTAB, or Federal Circuit matter naming 9,752,933; nothing here changes that finding.
5. Identifier discipline. I have not cross-mapped or auto-corrected any number (e.g., I did not conflate 9,752,933 with the Tetra Tech "293" patent, the Purdue "933" patent, or Warsaw Orthopedic's "933" patent). Any occurrence of "9,752,933" above refers literally to this patent.

If you want, I can now build a formal element-by-element anticipation chart for a specific claim (e.g., claim 19 vs. US 5,483,337 and US 5,642,190) once the full text of those references is pulled from the USPTO.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on this patent's face so the § 103 analysis is grounded in what those references actually disclose.

Let me pull a bit more detail on the dichroic-combiner art and a couple of the other cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,752,933 B2

"Optical emission system including dichroic beam combiner" (Agilent Technologies)

⏱ Date note: The task header states the current date as April 26, 2026, whereas the assignment preamble to this project states 2026-09-29. I flag the discrepancy rather than silently pick one; it does not affect the merits below (all prior art cited is from 1966–2003, well before either date).

---

1. Analytical framework

A claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). The controlling analysis is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and the Supreme Court's elaboration in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). KSR is decisive here: where the elements are individually known and the combination merely arranges familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the combination is obvious. KSR also expressly authorizes use of the problem the inventor was trying to solve as a source of motivation, and treats an inventor's own recitation of a known problem as evidence of obviousness.

Two features of this record matter:

1. The specification itself supplies the motivation. US 9,752,933 (the "'933 patent") recites the known trade-off between axial viewing (sensitivity, UV lines) and radial viewing (dynamic range, visible lines, reduced easily-ionized-element interference), the known cost of using two spectrometers, and the known inconvenience of physically swapping the dichroic for a mirror or clear aperture. See the "Background"/"Summary" text: "conventional systems require either two separate views using one spectrometer … or two simultaneous views, using separate spectrometers for each view (a very costly alternative)" and "To do so would generally require replacement of the dichroic beam combiner with a reflecting surface or a transmitting surface, respectively, which would be time consuming and otherwise inefficient." These are express problem statements usable as motivations.

2. Every element is a long-known building block. Dual-axis ICP viewing, dichroic beamsplitters, rotating segmented chopper wheels, and multiplexing into a single spectrometer are all pre-2003 arts cited on the face of the patent.

Applicable prior-art date: priority 2012-04-30 (Google's assumption; § 102(b)/§ 103 art must predate it by more than one year for the pre-AIA-relevant claims — all references below do).

---

2. The claims to be analyzed

Independent claims: 1 (system + movable member), 11 (system, ICP source, no movable member), 14 (means-plus-function apparatus + movable member), 19 (plasma source + mirror sets + mode selector). Dependent claims 2–10, 12–13, 15–18, 20.

The core inventive concept across all four independents is:

Two beams of different propagation directions (axial and radial ICP emission) are routed into a single spectrometer entrance aperture by a dichroic beam combiner that reflects a first wavelength band of the first beam and transmits a second, different wavelength band of the second beam — i.e., wavelength-division multiplexing of two viewing directions into one detector — optionally with a movable member/mode selector carrying a dichroic segment, a mirrored section, and a transparent section.

---

3. The prior-art references (all cited on the '933 face)

Note on scope: the Google Patents "Citations" list for this family contains ~135–223 entries, many of which are plasma-torch / RF-power-supply references that are facially irrelevant to an optical emission spectrometer. I limited the analysis to the spectroscopy/optics citations, which I verified below.

(A) US 5,483,337 A — Barnard (Perkin-Elmer), "Spectrometer with selectable radiation from induction plasma light source" (1994-10-19 / issued 1996-01-09)

• Discloses an ICP atomic emission spectrometer with axial radiation along the longitudinal axis and radial radiation substantially normal to it.
• A first mirror on the axis receives axial radiation; a series of reflectors (second, third, fourth mirrors) collect the radial radiation and steer it to the first mirror.
• The first reflector is rotatable between a first orientation (routes axial radiation to the detector) and a second orientation (routes radial radiation to the detector). Source: patents.justia.com/patent/5483337; US5483337 PDF.
• Expressly contemplates monochromator/polychromator detector systems and the trade-off between "maximum accuracy" (radial) and "maximum sensitivity" (axial).

(B) US 5,642,190 A — Krupa et al. (Thermo Jarrell Ash), "Dual-axis plasma imaging system for use in spectroscopic analysis" (1995-09-01 / issued 1997-06-24)

• Collects an axial emission component (first lens in the principal optical path) and a radial emission component (second lens in a secondary optical path offset ~90°) and images both onto the primary aperture of a single spectrometer.
• A folding mirror in the principal path, in a stowed position passes axial light; rotated into the path it blocks axial light and reflects the radial component onto the same entrance aperture. "By combining a lens/fiber optic system … with a folding mirror allows light from the plasma to be collected both radially and axially, and imaged onto the primary aperture of the first spectrometer."
• Also discloses an alternative with two entrance apertures on one spectrometer and an aperture flag that blocks one component or the other. Source: patents.google.com/patent/US5642190A; everypatent.com/comp/pat5642190.

(C) US 2003/0067600 A1 — Curtiss (issued as US 6,954,271), "System and method for multiplexing inputs into a single spectrometer" (2001-10-10 / pub. 2003-04-10)

• States the problem verbatim: "the measurement system requires a separate spectrometer … for each required simultaneous spectrum measurement. When multiple simultaneous spectrum measurements are desired, the cost and complexity … increases dramatically … What is needed is a device and method that provides for multiple and simultaneous spectrum measurements while only requiring a single spectrometer."
• Solves it by multiplexing multiple light inputs into one spectrometer (multiple entrance apertures / light plate). Source: patents.google.com/patent/US20030067600A1.

(D) US 4,795,256 A — Krause et al. (Photon Technology Int'l), "Dual-wavelength spectrophotometry system" (1987-03-09 / issued 1989-01-03)

• Discloses a rotating chopper disc "having five wedge-shaped mirrored segments … separated respectively by five transparent segments" — i.e., a single movable member carrying mirrored and transparent sections in a wheel.
• Discloses combining two light beams into a single collimated beam ("Coarse grating 26 acts as a beam combiner which focuses the first … and second … beams"). Light reflected by mirrored segments goes to monochromator 1; light transmitted through transparent segments goes to monochromator 2; the two monochromatic outputs are recombined. Source: patents.google.com/patent/US4795256A; freepatentsonline.com/4795256.

(E) US 3,704,061 A — Travis, "Wavelength selective mirror systems" (1970-03-25 / issued 1972-11-28)

• Discloses dichroic beamsplitters and interference filters used to separate and/or recombine wavelength bands (expressly UV, visible, and IR) onto a common optic axis. A dichroic beamsplitter on the cube diagonal "may be achromatic or chromatic," and filters "transmit certain wavelengths and reflect others." Source: patents.google.com/patent/US3704061A.

(F) DE 1291533 B — Zeiss, "Device for separating and recombining optical radiation" (1966-02-25 / 1969-03-27)

• Title alone establishes dichroic separation and recombination of optical radiation. (I could not retrieve its full text within tool limits — see caveats.)

(G) Secondary/structural references

• US 5,477,321 A — Bayer, "Dual beam tunable spectrometer" (dual-beam spectrometer architecture).
• US 2004/0179363 A1 — Leica Microsystems, illumination apparatus using beam combining.
• US 6,684,000 B1 — Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, photon-sorting spectroscopic microscope (multi-path collection to one detector). (The number is rendered literally as it appears in the list.)

Do not conflate: the face of the patent also lists the parent US 9,279,722 B2 (same inventors, same family). Because it is commonly owned by the same inventive entity, it is not prior art to the '933 claims for anticipation/obviousness purposes. It is listed only for completeness.

---

4. Claim-by-claim obviousness mapping

Claim 1 — independent system claim

Conclusion for claim 1: Obvious over (A) or (B) in view of (D), (E), and (C).

Claim 11 — independent system claim (ICP source, no movable member)

Identical optical core, minus the movable member, plus the express limitation that the source is an ICP source. Every limitation is met by (B) US 5,642,190 (ICP axial + radial emission delivered to a single spectrometer aperture) combined with (E)/(D) for the dichroic reflect-band/transmit-band combining, with (C) US 2003/0067600 supplying the motivation. Claim 11 is broader than claim 1 (no movable-member requirement), making it the most vulnerable independent claim.

Claim 14 — independent means-plus-function apparatus

Claim 19 — independent system claim

This claim is the closest to a single-reference read combined with one structural reference. US 5,483,337 discloses nearly all of it except the dichroic and the three-section selector:

---

5. Motivation to combine (the § 103 crux)

The obviousness case does not rest on hindsight; each link is supplied by the references themselves or by the '933 specification:

1. A single spectrometer is desirable; two spectrometers are costly. Both the '933 Background and (C) US 2003/0067600 state this explicitly. (C) is unambiguous: it identifies the "need … for multiple and simultaneous spectrum measurements while only requiring a single spectrometer" as the problem to be solved. This is the classic KSR "known problem" motivation.

2. Axial and radial views are complementary and both are wanted. (A) US 5,483,337 and (B) US 5,642,190 both recognize the axial-sensitivity / radial-accuracy trade-off and both teach delivering both views to one detector. A POSITA seeking to exploit both views simultaneously on one instrument would naturally look to the way the art already routes two paths to a single aperture (A)/(B).

3. Dichroic combiners are the known tool for merging two wavelength-distinct beams on a common axis. (E) US 3,704,061 and DE 1291533 teach exactly this, expressly across UV/visible/IR. Because ICP emission lines of analytical interest are concentrated in the UV (axial viewing is favored for As, Se, Pb) and the visible (radial viewing is favored for K, Na, Li) — a fact the '933 specification concedes — a POSITA would have a predictable, concrete reason to spectrally partition the two views with a dichroic: reflection of the short-wavelength band and transmission of the long-wavelength band (or vice versa).

4. The mode wheel is an obvious packaging of a known convenience problem. The '933 specification concedes that swapping the dichroic for a mirror or a clear aperture is "time consuming and otherwise inefficient." (D) US 4,795,256 already teaches a single rotating disc with alternating mirrored and transparent segments, and (A) US 5,483,337 already teaches a rotatable selector for choosing between views. A POSITA would predictably combine these to place a dichroic segment, a mirrored segment, and a clear segment on one movable member — a design choice with only predictable results (namely, the three modes the specification describes).

5. Predictable results / no unexpected performance. The specification's asserted benefits — "measurements … completed in about half the time," "better detection limits," "increased dynamic range" — are precisely the expected consequences of (i) not needing two spectrometers and (ii) adding the full-wavelength axial-only and radial-only modes. Nothing in the specification alleges a result that a POSITA would not have anticipated from the known trade-offs. Under KSR, this is the quintessential "combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yield[ing] predictable results."

---

6. Treatment of the dependent claims

Because they add only routine detail, each falls with its independent claim:

• Claims 2, 3, 15 (mirrored section reflects all first light / transmits-rejects second; transparent section does the converse): inherent in a mirror segment and a clear segment on the (D) wheel, given the (A)/(B) geometry.
• Claims 4, 12 ("first direction along an axis … second substantially perpendicular"): directly met by (A) US 5,483,337 and (B) US 5,642,190. (Claim 4 contains the typographical string "along art axis" — reproduced literally, not corrected.)
• Claims 5–8, 20 (split at a predetermined wavelength value, "about 500 nm," either polarity): a dichroic's reflect/transmit transition wavelength is its defining design parameter; selecting ~500 nm is a routine optimization dictated by where UV analytical lines end and visible lines begin (the specification's own rationale). (E) US 3,704,061 discloses band-selective dichroics generically. (Claims 5–8/20 are also where the "nominal value" typography appears in claims 17–18 of the granted text.)
• Claims 9, 13 (first and second sets of mirrors): squarely disclosed by (A) US 5,483,337's first mirror for axial + second/third/fourth mirrors for radial.
• Claims 10, 16 (monochromator or polychromator plus detector): (A) US 5,483,337 expressly describes monochromator/polychromator detector systems; (B) US 5,642,190 describes sequential scanning monochromator, Rowland-circle polychromator, and echelle spectrometers.
• Claims 17, 18 (dichroic reflecting sub-nominal wavelengths and transmitting above, or the reverse): both polarities are conventional dichroic configurations; (E) is polarity-agnostic and the specification itself presents both as alternatives.

---

7. Anticipated counter-arguments and how they fare

---

8. Bottom line

• Claims 11, 14, and 19 (and their dependents) present the strongest § 103 vulnerability, because US 5,483,337 + US 5,642,190 supply the dual-direction ICP optics and single-aperture routing, US 3,704,061 (and DE 1291533) supply the dichroic reflect-band/transmit-band combiner, US 4,795,256 supplies the mirrored/transparent movable member, and US 2003/0067600 supplies the single-spectrometer motivation.
• Claim 1 is obvious over the same set with the addition that the movable member carries all three sections — a predictable substitution of a known dichroic element onto a known segmented wheel.
• The primary combination to assert would be: US 5,642,190 (or US 5,483,337) as primary, in view of US 4,795,256 and US 3,704,061, further in view of US 2003/0067600. A secondary, alternative combination: US 5,483,337 primary + US 4,795,256 + US 3,704,061.

---

9. Caveats and confidence

• I did not obtain full text of every cited reference. I verified the disclosures of US 5,483,337, US 5,642,190, US 4,795,256, US 3,704,061, and US 2003/0067600 through the sources linked above. DE 1291533 B, US 5,477,321 A, and several of the microscopy/beam-combining hits were not full-text verified (search-tool step limit reached); their use here is limited to titles/abstract-level inferences and should be confirmed before being relied on in any office action.
• Claim charts are prima-facie, not exhaustive. A complete invalidity contention would need element-by-element citations with column/line support from each reference and a full check of any § 102 anticipation (e.g., whether US 5,483,337 + US 5,642,190 alone anticipate any of the dependent claims).
• Typography preserved literally per the strict rule. The granted text's errors — e.g., claim 4 "along art axis," claim 14 "single lioht detection and measuremc apparatus," claims 17/18 "nominal value," claim 20 "predetermined, wavelength value" — are reproduced as they appear and not corrected.
• Do not conflate near-number references. The '933 patent's citation list includes the same-family parent US 9,279,722 B2 (excluded as non-prior art) and numerous unrelated plasma-torch/power-supply documents; unrelated "933" patents (e.g., 6,945,933, 9,763,933) must not be attributed to this patent.
• Priority/filing dates are Google's assumptions (priority 2012-04-30; issue 2017-09-05), expressly disclaimed by the source; the § 103 conclusion above is not sensitive to small shifts in those dates because all references are 1997 or earlier.