US 9766156

I have the authoritative full text of the patent. Let me cross-check for any litigation, assignment, or CAFC docket activity before summarizing.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks for litigation/PTAB/CAFC activity specific to this number.

US 9,766,156 B2 — Patent Summary

Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9766156/en (authoritative full text supplied)

1. Bibliographic data

Note on the title. The granted US patent is titled "Focused optical configuration for NSMS probes." The earlier publication record for the same disclosure appears as "Focused Focused Optical Configuration for NSMS Probes" (US 2016/0033358 A1, per FreePatentsOnline) and the WO record likewise shows the duplicated word "Focused focused…". Per your standing rule I am not silently correcting this — the doubled word appears in the pre‑grant/WO records.

Terminology note. The patent text uses "non‑interference stress measurement system (NSMS)" in the specification/claims while the drawing description (FIG. 2) refers to a "non‑intrusive stress measurement system (NSMS)." Both spellings appear in the authoritative text.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A method for configuring a sensor of a non-interference stress management system is disclosed. The method may include determining a focal distance between a light transmitting fiber and a transmit lens, the focal distance configured to focus light from the transmit fiber to form a focused transmit beam, the transmit beam targeting a reflective structure. The method may further include positioning the light transmitting fiber and the transmit lens, wherein the light transmitting fiber and the transmit lens are separated by a transmit gap based on the focal distance and positioning a light receptive fiber and a receive lens to receive a focused reflected beam from the reflective structure, wherein the light receptive fiber is separated from the receive lens by a receive gap based on the focal distance."

(Note: the abstract's phrase "non-interference stress management system" differs from "measurement system" used in the body — this inconsistency is in the original.)

3. Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method (monitoring structural data)

A staged method for monitoring a structure of a gas turbine engine that has a reflective surface, comprising four steps:

1. Position an NSMS sensor to monitor the structure, the sensor having four components: a light transmitting fiber, a transmit lens, a light receptive fiber, and a receive lens.
2. Determine a focal distance between the light transmitting fiber and the transmit lens — the focal distance being selected to allow the transmit lens to focus the light from the transmitting fiber into a focused transmit beam aimed at the reflective surface.
3. Position the transmitting fiber and transmit lens so they are separated by a transmit gap based on that focal distance.
4. Position the light receptive fiber and receive lens to capture the focused reflected beam from the structure, with the receptive fiber separated from the receive lens by a receive gap also based on the focal distance.

In short: a method of building/aligning a "focused/focused" NSMS optical probe — deliberately spacing each fiber off its lens by an empirically determined gap, rather than butting fiber directly against lens.

Claim 7 — System

The apparatus counterpart, claiming an NSMS sensor configured to monitor a reflective‑surfaced gas turbine engine structure, comprising:

• a light transmitting fiber;
• a transmit lens having a focal distance between it and the transmitting fiber, the two separated by a transmit gap based on that focal distance, the focal distance selected to allow the transmit lens to form a focused transmit beam on the reflective surface;
• a light receptive fiber positioned to receive the focused reflected beam; and
• a receive lens positioned to receive that focused reflected beam, the receptive fiber separated from the receive lens by a receive gap based on the focal distance.

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2 / 8 — reflective structure is a rotating airfoil of the gas turbine engine.
• 3 / 9 — reporting measured structural data to a local memory (claim 9: "a local memory configured to receive" the data).
• 4 / 10 — reporting to a ground based memory (claim 10 is drafted as "The method of claim 7" — an apparent claim‑type drafting inconsistency in the printed claim set).
• 5 / 11 — structural data monitored during a flight cycle.
• 6 / 12 — structural data monitored during a test cycle.

Features described in the specification but NOT claimed

The written description and original Summary include refinements that did not survive into the 12 granted claims, including: the quarter‑pitch lens for transmit and/or receive optics; using a placeholder (temporary shim/wire) to set the gap, securing it with adhesive, then removing the placeholder; using a washer to maintain the gap; and adjusting the gaps to account for tolerances. These are support‑only subject matter in the granted patent.

4. Cited prior art and forward citations (context)

References cited on the face (12–13 listings), notably:

• US 2008/0130014 A1 / US 2008/0130014 — Rush, "Displacement Measurement Sensor Using the Confocal Principle with an Optical Fiber" (2006‑12‑05).
• US 2010/0018321 A1 and US 7,984,656 B2 — United Technologies Corp, "NSMS flight laser detector system" (priority 2008‑07‑24) — the same assignee's own earlier NSMS patent, cited in the background.
• US 5,557,099 — MTU, optical probe with an elliptical shaped light beam.
• US 2010/0074727 A1 — Siemens Energy, imaging fiber optic ribbon probe for blade vibration monitoring.
• Others: US 5,201,227; US 5,818,996; US 6,370,299; US 6,717,172; US 2004/0061954 A1; US 2006/0145066 A1; US 2008/0297808 A1; EP 1546683 B1.

Non‑patent citations: EPO search report for EP 13878162.0 (Oct. 7, 2016); ISR for PCT/US2013/076104 (Apr. 14, 2014); Jones, H., "Shedding Light on Vibration," Mechanical Engineering, ASME, Nov. 1, 1996.

Forward citations: US 2022/0107416 A1 and US 11,714,195 B2 — Raytheon Technologies Corporation, "Optical time of arrival airfoil measurement probe" (priority 2020‑10‑05). Also FR 3,059,646 B1 (Safran Nacelles) citing the family.

5. Litigation / PTAB / CAFC 2026 docket search — result and limits

I searched for litigation, PTAB/IPR, and Federal Circuit activity associated with 9,766,156 specifically. I found no record of any district‑court case, IPR/PGR, reissue, reexamination, or CAFC appeal involving US 9,766,156. My searches returned only unrelated matters (e.g., a Vermeer/Kubota IPR over the '750 patent; an Edge Networking/Microsoft '823 patent petition; a Raytheon IPR over US 8,641,366) — none of which reference 9,766,156.

Uncertainty to flag explicitly:

• I did not query PACER, Docket Navigator, or the CAFC docket system directly; my check was web‑search based. A docket‑database query would be needed for a definitive "no litigation" statement.
• The patent is still within its 20‑year term (expires 2033‑12‑18, absent terminal disclaimer) and is held by RTX Corporation, so future assertion is possible even though none was found.
• I have no evidence of a 2026 CAFC appeal for this number; I cannot rule one out from public web results alone.

If you need court‑grade confirmation, the next step would be a direct PACER/Docket Navigator lookup on "9,766,156" and a CAFC docket search for the same, plus a PTAB API query on the patent number.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9766156.

These results are for unrelated patents (e.g., a Sonos/Google "Mathews '615" patent). Let me search more specifically.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,766,156: 0 (zero). The "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no AIA trial proceedings, and targeted web searches for an IPR, PGR, or CBM against this patent surfaced nothing. There is therefore no breakdown by status to report: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB and un-hardened — every one of claims 1–12 remains live and no estoppel, FWD, or cancellation ruling exists to lean on. This is not a "hardened patent" signal; it is an "unlitigated patent" signal. The defensive value cuts both ways (see Strategic summary).

Caveat on sourcing: I could not find any PTAB proceeding number associated with US 9,766,156 in web search, and I will not invent one. Where the record is silent, I say so rather than fabricate an FWD, panel, or docket number.

PTAB proceedings

None — no AIA trial proceeding identified

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No proceeding on file per the USPTO ODP structured data; no contrary proceeding located via web search.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no FWD exists, so no claim has been canceled or sustained at the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no FWD to appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: Because nothing has been tested, a defendant gets zero free kills. There is no canceled claim to point to, no FWD reasoning to adopt, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding prior petitioners. Any invalidity attack on this patent starts from a blank slate.

Closest thing to PTAB-adjacent history (not a trial proceeding): The patent's prosecution and EPO counterpart show no adversarial validity challenge in the US:

• The PCT application (PCT/US2013/076104, published as WO2014143295A1) went through the International Search Report process (ISR reported 2014-04-14) — that is a prosecution artifact, not an AIA trial.
• The EP counterpart EP2972218B1 was granted on 2020-08-26 (EP search report dated 2016-10-07). Grant is not opposition; I found no EPO opposition record in the material available to me.
• The patent is cited by a later RTX/Raytheon continuation-family probe, US20220107416A1 / US11714195B2 ("Optical time of arrival airfoil measurement probe," priority 2020-10-05) — the patent owner building on its own work, not a validity challenge.

Strategic summary

Claim status — every claim is UNTESTED. As issued, US 9,766,156 has 12 claims:

• Claim 1 (independent) — method for monitoring structural data on a gas-turbine-engine structure having a reflective surface; requires (a) positioning an NSMS sensor with a light transmitting fiber, transmit lens, light receptive fiber, and receive lens; (b) determining a focal distance between the transmitting fiber and transmit lens so the lens focuses light into a focused transmit beam targeting the reflective surface; (c) positioning the fiber and lens separated by a transmit gap based on the focal distance; and (d) positioning the receptive fiber and receive lens separated by a receive gap based on the focal distance to receive a focused reflected beam.
• Claims 2–6 (dependent on claim 1) — rotating airfoil; reporting to local memory; reporting to ground-based memory; monitoring during a flight cycle; monitoring during a test cycle.
• Claim 7 (independent) — the system/apparatus counterpart of claim 1 (sensor with the transmit gap and receive gap, both based on the focal distance).
• Claims 8–12 (dependent on claim 7) — mirror the claim 2–6 limitations.

No claim has been canceled. No claim has been judicially or administratively affirmed. The "canceled vs. sustained vs. untested" ledger is therefore: canceled = none; sustained = none; untested = claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (all twelve).

Estoppel landscape — clean, and that is the point. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has been instituted against this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is entirely absent. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar. A defendant today can file a full-scope IPR on any § 102/§ 103 ground over any prior-art patent or printed publication (the § 311(b) limit to patents and printed publications applies, so system/product art and public-use evidence must go to district court, not the PTAB). Conversely, the patent owner has never had its claims narrowed or its validity tested, meaning a defendant also has no roadmap and no administrative record — the petition must be built from scratch. Note the high bar that the file history itself sets: the patent owner distinguished its "focused/focused" configuration from prior "collimated" arrangements in which fibers sit flush against the lenses, so a petitioner attacking the gap-based-focal-distance limitation will need art teaching a controlled fiber-to-lens spacing for focusing, not merely a fiber placed against a lens.

Pattern signals — none of the tell-tale ones. There is no repeat petitioner (there are no petitioners at all), no PTAB appeal activity by the patent owner, and no defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents in the chain. The patent's ownership history is purely corporate: United Technologies Corporation → Raytheon Technologies Corporation (name change, 2020) → RTX Corporation (name change, 2023) — i.e., this is a captive portfolio patent of a large operating aerospace/defense company (RTX), not a troll-owned assertion vehicle. That materially changes the defensive read: an NPE-style "demand letter" scenario is unlikely to attach to this patent, but a competitor-vs-competitor invalidity or freedom-to-operate dispute is the realistic posture, and RTX has the resources to litigate and to defend the patent at the PTAB.

Practical takeaway: This is a narrow, apparatus/method claim set directed to optical probe geometry (fiber-to-lens gap sized to a focal distance, on both transmit and receive sides). Its life runs to the 2033-12-18 anticipated expiration (filed 2013-12-18; priority 2013-03-15; maintenance fees paid through the 8th year on 2025-02-20), so it has real remaining term and real exposure. The absence of any PTAB proceeding is a signal that the patent has not yet been worth attacking — or that any fight has been channeled elsewhere (district court, licensing, or not yet triggered). It is not a signal that the claims are weak or strong.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on any PTAB record — there is none. If you are a defendant and opposing counsel represents that claims have been "invalidated" or "canceled," that is false as to this patent; no FWD exists. Demand the claim numbers and the proceeding number, and verify at USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions). Likewise, any infringement theory against you must still account for all 12 live claims.

2. File a fresh IPR if you have § 102/§ 103 patent-or-printed-publication art. With no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on the books, a first-filed IPR can challenge claims 1 and 7 (and any dependents) on any ground limited only by § 311(b). The statutory clock is 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (one year from service of a district-court complaint alleging infringement), and once instituted the PTAB has a statutory 1-year trial deadline to reach an FWD (§ 316(a)(11)).

3. Build the invalidity theory against the "gap based on focal distance" core. The claim-1 and claim-7 focal-distance/gap limitations are the narrowest link. The specification grounds them in the distinction from flush-mounted "collimated" configurations (US 9,766,156, cols. describing FIG. 5 vs. FIGS. 6–7) and in the express statement that optical focus distance decreases as the transmit gap length increases. The cited prior art of record — e.g., US 5,817,996 (fiber-optic coupled diffuse reflectance probe), US 6,370,299 (fiber optic collimation apparatus, Boeing), US 2008/0130014 A1 (confocal-principle displacement sensor with optical fiber), and US 2004/0061954 A1 (bi-aspheric lens for fiber-optic components) — is a sensible starting point for a § 103 combination, since several of those references are flagged as examiner-cited (") in the prosecution record, meaning they are already before the Office and usable in an IPR without new-art risk.

4. Consider secondary considerations early. Because the patent is a captive RTX asset with a long prosecution/family history and no prior invalidity adjudication, expect the patent owner to develop objective indicia (commercial success in NSMS/engine-monitoring products, copying, industry praise) if you file. Front-load your rebuttal.

5. Confirm the negative directly before acting. One final ODP call to the PTAB trial API endpoint for the patent number, and a check of the case docket number IPR2026-xxxxx activity on PTAB E2E, will lock in the "no proceeding" conclusion and head off a late-surfacing recently-filed petition that the ODP ingest may not yet have indexed. As of the structured block in this prompt, the answer is: no PTAB activity on file.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 9766156.

Let me dig deeper into litigation records and the assignment correspondent details.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,766,156 B2

Patent: Focused optical configuration for NSMS probes
App. No. 14/774,574 (35 U.S.C. §371 national stage of PCT/US2013/076104, filed 2013-12-18; priority to Prov. 61/794,533 filed 2013-03-15 and Prov. 61/903,212 filed 2013-11-12)
Issued: 2017-09-19

Source note / flag: The assignment chain below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 9,766,156 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9766156/en), which lists reel/frame, conveyance, assignor/assignee, and effective dates. The fetched record does not expose the correspondent of record (recording attorney/firm) for any link. I could not retrieve that field from the Assignment Center within this session, so signal #3 (repeat correspondent) is reported as unclear, not inferred. No litigation was located for this patent number (consistent with the earlier litigation section, which returned only unrelated patents — e.g. the Sonos/Google "Mathews '615" family, which is a different patent whose number coincidentally ends in '615). I did not fabricate correspondent or litigation data to fill these gaps.

Inventors

Pattern note: Single-inventor patent; no co-inventor departure cluster. There is no evidence of inventors leaving the assignee (the "departure within 12 months" fire-sale precursor). This is a corporate-captured, internally-owned invention, not a founder/startup patent.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: United Technologies Corporation (UTC), 10 Farm Springs Road, Farmington, CT 06032. Google Patents lists a later "Original Assignee: United Technologies Corp."
• Primary line of business: Diversified aerospace/defense industrial — jet engines (Pratt & Whitney), aerospace systems, and (until the 2020 separation) Otis elevators and Carrier HVAC. A large, publicly traded operating company (NYSE: UTX at the time).
• Product embodiment: The claimed NSMS probe/sensor is engine instrumentation/test technology used to measure rotating-airfoil vibration/stress on UTC/Pratt gas turbine engines. This is best characterized as internal design/test and monitoring technology rather than a standalone sold product — the patent's own INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY section frames it as calibrating an NSMS sensor used with a gas turbine engine.
• Current status: Still operating. UTC's aerospace business merged with Raytheon Company effective 2020-04-03, becoming Raytheon Technologies Corporation, then renamed RTX Corporation effective 2023-07-14. Current assignee of record is RTX Corporation.

Assignment timeline

All five recorded events are internal to the same corporate family. There is no third-party transfer anywhere in the chain.

• 2013-11-08 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-10 — Reel 036535/0826

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Bruce Hockaday (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: United Technologies Corporation, Connecticut
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the fetched record — could not verify; not reported.
  • Context: Initial inventor→company assignment (employee invention capture).

• 2016-04-12 (executed) / recorded 2016-04-22 — Reel 038498/0898

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Bruce Hockaday
  • Assignee: United Technologies Corporation, Connecticut
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the fetched record — could not verify; not reported.
  • Context: Second Hockaday→UTC assignment — a confirmatory/duplicate or supplementary recording of the same inventor's interest (two records, same assignor/assignee pair). Not a third-party transfer; worth noting as an internal housekeeping event rather than a change in ownership. I cannot determine from the available record which underlying application/provisional each document was intended to cover.

• 2020-04-03 (effective) / recorded 2020-09-04 — Reel 054062/0001

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (not an assignment)
  • Assignor: United Technologies Corporation
  • Assignee: Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Massachusetts
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the fetched record — could not verify; not reported.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorg / change of name only — the UTC–Raytheon merger that created Raytheon Technologies (publicly reported; SEC 8-K/10-K matter). No new consideration, no third party.

• 2020-04-03 (effective) / recorded 2021-03-04 — Reel 055659/0001

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (corrective to the change of name)
  • Assignor: United Technologies Corporation
  • Assignee: Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Connecticut (corrected address)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the fetched record — could not verify; not reported.
  • Context: Administrative correction — the recorded text removes patent application number 11/886,281 and adds 14/846,874 and corrects the receiving-party address. Ownership unchanged.

• 2023-07-14 (effective) / recorded 2023-07-27 — Reel 064714/0001

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Raytheon Technologies Corporation
  • Assignee: RTX Corporation, Connecticut
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the fetched record — could not verify; not reported.
  • Context: Internal rebranding / change of name only — Raytheon Technologies renamed RTX Corporation. Current assignee of record; no assignment of title to any third party.

Maintenance fees paid (4th year 2021-02-18; 8th year 2025-02-20), so the asset is being actively maintained by the operating entity. Anticipated expiration 2033-12-18.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9766156
    2013 : Inventor assigns to UTC
         : PCT application filed
    2015 : Inventor assignment recorded
    2016 : Second inventor assignment recorded
    2017 : Patent issued to UTC
    2020 : UTC merged and renamed Raytheon Technologies
    2021 : Corrective assignment recorded
    2023 : Raytheon Technologies renamed RTX Corporation

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Every recorded assignee is the same large operating company or its direct successor: United Technologies Corp → Raytheon Technologies Corp → RTX Corp (reels 036535/0826, 038498/0898, 054062/0001, 055659/0001, 064714/0001). No LLC named "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures"; no registered-agent service address; no single-purpose entity appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, MOSAID/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, or any Spangenberg entity. The current owner (RTX) is an aerospace prime, not a monetization entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (insufficient data). This is the field that would be most diagnostic, and the fetched record does not expose the correspondent of record for any of the five events. I am expressly not inferring a single law firm consolidating the recordings. If the Assignment Center correspondents were pulled directly, note that UTC/RTX routinely use the same in-house/corporate counsel firm or the same UTC/Raytheon IP operations address across decade-spanning reorgs — but I cannot confirm that here.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Five recorded events spanning ~10 years (2015 → 2023), all of which are inventor-assignment, confirmatory recording, or change-of-name. There is no rapid (<24-month) churn through chained, unrelated LLCs; no shared-principal cluster.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit naming US 9,766,156 was located; accordingly there is no within-6-months transfer to set venue or standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. UTC/Raytheon/RTX never filed Chapter 7/11 over this asset; the patent rode through a strategic all-stock merger and two name changes.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No transfer of this patent to an NPE asserting on RTX's behalf; there is no disclosure, SEC filing, or docket evidence of any outbound transfer, and the patent remains with RTX.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT (in the literal sense). The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Additional ownership-continuity signal (not an NPE flag): The patent is civically live within RTX's own portfolio — it is cited by later RTX-family applications US 2022/0107416 A1 and US 11,714,195 B2 ("Optical time of arrival airfoil measurement probe," Raytheon Technologies). The assignee is continuing to build NSMS/optical-TOA probe IP on top of this disclosure, which is the behavior of an operating company prosecuting an internal R&D line, not a monetizer.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting.

Practical caveat: the verdict list has no label for "owned and maintained by an operating company that simply never asserted." This patent is exactly that — the closest listed category is Defensive / non-asserting (the non-asserting element holds), even though the chain terminates at the operating company RTX Corporation rather than at a formal defensive aggregator (RPX/AST/LOT).

Justification: every recorded link (reels 036535/0826, 038498/0898, 054062/0001, 055659/0001, 064714/0001) is internal — inventor Hockaday → UTC, a confirmatory UTC recording, and two change-of-name events (UTC → Raytheon Technologies → RTX) plus a correction. No shell LLC, no known asserter, no cascading third-party transfers, no litigation, and the asset is actively maintained (8th-year fee paid 2025-02-20) and cited by current RTX continuations. This is not an NPE patent.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), search by patent number 9766156 — and cross-check the correspondent-of-record field there for the five reel/frame entries above (that field was not available in the source used here).

I'll research the prior art references cited in US 9766156, verifying details through web searches.

Let me gather details on the remaining fiber-optic/lens references most relevant to the optical claims.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,766,156 B2 ("Focused Optical Configuration for NSMS Probes")

Scope and method

I searched for the specific patent number 9,766,156 (application US 14/774,574; PCT/US2013/076104; priority 2013‑03‑15; granted 2017‑09‑19; current assignee RTX Corp.). Results returned are for the correct patent (a United Technologies / Raytheon/RTX NSMS probe patent), not the unrelated "Mathews '615" Sonos/Google patent referenced in the earlier litigation-summary section. Note: that earlier section's litigation search was inconclusive; I likewise found no U.S. litigation naming US 9,766,156, so the analysis below rests on the patent's own cited references (the "References Cited" / IDS record) plus verifiable public bibliographic data.

Claim set being tested (literal):

• Claim 1 (method): NSMS sensor w/ transmitting fiber + transmit lens + receptive fiber + receive lens; determine a focal distance between transmit fiber and transmit lens; position the two separated by a transmit gap based on that focal distance; position receptive fiber and receive lens separated by a receive gap based on the focal distance to receive a focused reflected beam.
• Claims 2–6: rotating airfoil; report to local memory; report to ground-based memory; monitor during flight cycle; monitor during test cycle.
• Claim 7 (system): the same structure recited as an apparatus (transmit lens "having a focal distance between the light transmitting fiber and the transmit lens"; transmit gap; receptive fiber; receive lens; receive gap).
• Claims 8–12: rotating airfoil; local memory; ground-based memory; flight cycle; test cycle.

Legal caveat (stated explicitly): Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element arranged as claimed. On the record below, no cited reference alone appears to disclose the complete "transmit gap based on focal distance + receive gap based on focal distance" limitation; the strongest references are closer to § 103 (obviousness) material or to anticipation of the dependent claims. That characterization is my assessment of the technical disclosure, not a legal conclusion.

Tier 1 — Most relevant (same problem space: NSMS / optical blade-tip probes on gas turbine engines)

1. US 5,201,227 A — Iinuma et al. (Ishikawajima-Harima Jukogyo K.K.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,201,227, "Device for measuring vibrations on rotating blade," Iinuma, Wakatsuki & Minagawa, appl. No. 07/846,086.
• Dates: filed 1992‑03‑05; published/granted 1993‑04‑13.
• Description: Optical probe mounted through a gas-turbine casing aimed at a rotating blade tip. Probe contains a light-projecting optical fiber with a (quartz) lens on its tip, a second lens directing light to a light-receiving optical fiber, and a protective glass. A laser beam is projected onto the blade tip; reflected light returns through the receiving fiber to a photoelectric transducer/analyzer. Coolant channels cool the probe. Claim 2 recites the fibers arranged concentrically. (Google Patents; EveryPatent transcript)
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 in structure — it discloses an NSMS-type optical sensor monitoring a reflective rotating airfoil with transmit fiber/lens and receive fiber/lens. § 102 weakness: the reference describes the lens "on a tip of" the fiber and does not expressly recite a fiber-to-lens gap calibrated to a focal distance (the core novelty of the '156 claims). Recalculation would likely be required to find the gap limitation disclosed.

2. US 5,557,099 A — Zielinski et al. (MTU Motoren- und Turbinen-Union München GmbH)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,557,099, "Signal device for turbo-engines using an optical probe with an elliptical shaped light beam," Zielinski & Ziller, appl. No. 08/364,096; DE priority 43 44 650.7.
• Dates: DE priority 1993‑12‑24; U.S. filed 1994‑12‑27; published/granted 1996‑09‑17.
• Description: Turbo-engine optical probe that emits a focused illuminating beam from an axially-central transmitting fiber through a cylinder lens optically connected in front of the fiber, toward moving blade end faces, with separate receiving fibers, a partially diffusely scattering cover disk, and a coaxial tube-shaped screen. Components are held by a spacer ring and glued/cemented (adhesive). Emphasizes reducing unwanted/structured reflected light and improving signal reproducibility — the same problem the '156 patent addresses. (Google Patents; EveryPatent transcript)
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 in structure (focused transmit beam onto rotating blade; transmit + receive fibers and lenses; adhesive assembly). § 102 weakness: it does not quantify a fiber–lens gap tied to a focal distance for either transmit or receive optics, nor a corresponding receive gap.

3. US 7,984,656 B2 / US 2010/0018321 A1 — Nicklous et al. (United Technologies Corp.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 7,984,656 B2 (and pre-grant pub. US 2010/0018321 A1), "NSMS flight laser detector system," Nicklous, Dreger & Caswell (assignee United Technologies Corp.); appl. No. 12/220,368.
• Dates: filed 2008‑07‑24; published 2010‑01‑28; granted 2011‑07‑26.
• Description: An in-flight NSMS: a laser directs a beam via a probe that focuses the beam toward rotating fan blades; an optical receiver collects reflected light; optical fibers connect laser→probe and receiver→detector; a flight recorder (local memory) stores blade-arrival data; automatic thresholding is done during flight. The '156 patent expressly cites this reference in its Background. (Google Patents; patent PDF)
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 (memory/flight-cycle/test-cycle/reporting limitations) and the general NSMS framework of claims 1 and 7. It is the strongest reference for the "report to local/ground-based memory" and "during a flight cycle" refinements. § 102 weakness for the independent claims: it does not disclose the transmit/receive gap based on a focal distance — its probe "focuses the beam" without reciting the fiber-to-lens gap structure.

4. US 2010/0074727 A1 — Twerdochlib (Siemens Energy, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2010/0074727 A1, "Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Blade Vibration With An Imaging Fiber Optic Ribbon Probe," Twerdochlib.
• Dates: filed 2008‑09‑24; published 2010‑03‑25.
• Description: Blade-vibration monitoring using an imaging fiber-optic ribbon probe; fiber optic sensing of blade passage on a gas-turbine rotor.
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 structurally (fiber optic blade-vibration probe on gas turbine). § 102 weakness: an "imaging ribbon" is a different optical topology; no fiber–lens focal gap teaching.

Tier 2 — Fiber-optic / lens geometry references (relevant to the "gap based on focal distance" limitation)

5. US 6,370,299 B1 — Green & Rice (The Boeing Company)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 6,370,299 B1, "Fiber optic collimation apparatus and associated method," Samuel I. Green & Robert Rex Rice (assignee The Boeing Company); appl. No. 09/672,522.
• Dates: filed 2000‑09‑27; granted 2002‑04‑09.
• Description: Apparatus/method for positioning each optical fiber relative to its collimating lens, using a common reference mirror and actuators to iterate fiber position until return-signal magnitude is maximized; explicitly discusses the effect of fiber end offset from the lens focal point producing convergent/divergent beams, and fixing the fiber in position (e.g., potting). (Google Patents; patent PDF)
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 1 and 7 as to the principle of positioning a fiber at a determined distance from a lens based on focusing. § 102 weakness: it is directed to collimation (the very arrangement the '156 patent disparages as prior art), not to a focused transmit beam with a transmit gap and matching receive gap in an NSMS probe. This is the classic reference an examiner would pair with an NSMS reference under § 103.

6. US 8,189,996… — see note / US 5,818,996 A — Doyle (Axiom Analytical, Inc.)

(Correction by literal reading: the cited number is US 5,818,996 A.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,818,996 A, "Fiber-optic coupled diffuse reflectance probe," Doyle (assignee Axiom Analytical, Inc.).
• Dates: filed 1996‑01‑18; granted 1998‑10‑06.
• Description: A fiber-optic coupled probe for diffuse reflectance spectroscopy — fiber(s) coupled to lens optics for transmitting and collecting light from a sample.
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 1, 7 only in the generic fiber–lens transmit/receive sense. Low § 102 relevance: no gas-turbine blade, no focal-gap calibration.

7. US 2008/0130014 A1 — Rush (Christopher John Rush)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2008/0130014 A1, "Displacement Measurement Sensor Using the Confocal Principle with an Optical Fiber," Christopher John Rush.
• Dates: filed 2006‑12‑05; published 2008‑06‑05.
• Description: Displacement sensor using a confocal optical-fiber geometry (fiber coupled to focusing optics), where the fiber–optic spacing governs the focused measurement point.
• Potentially anticipating: Claims 1, 7 as to fiber/lens spacing controlling focus. § 102 weakness: confocal metrology, not an NSMS blade probe; no receive-gap limitation matching the claim.

8. US 2004/0061954 A1 — Ludington et al. (Eastman Kodak Company)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2004/0061954 A1, "Symmetric, bi-aspheric lens for use in transmissive and reflective optical fiber components," Ludington (Eastman Kodak).
• Dates: filed 2002‑10‑01; published 2004‑04‑01.
• Description: A lens design (symmetric bi-aspheric) for optical fiber transmissive/reflective components.
• Potentially anticipating: None squarely. Marginal — at most evidentiary as to lens selection; not an anticipating reference for any claim.

Tier 3 — Peripheral / non-analogous references (weakest relevance)

9. US 6,717,172 B2 — Gharib et al. (California Institute of Technology)

• "Diffractive optical fluid shear stress sensor"; filed 2000‑12‑19; granted 2004‑04‑06. Diffractive optical sensor for wall shear stress. Potentially anticipating: none directly (different measurement physics).

10. US 2006/0145066 A1 — Tamiya (Hideaki Tamiya)

• "Displacement detection apparatus, displacement gauging apparatus and fixed point detection apparatus"; filed 2004‑12‑13; published 2006‑07‑06. Optical displacement detection. Potentially anticipating: none directly.

11. US 2008/0297808 A1 — Riza et al. (Nabeel Agha Riza)

• "Optical Sensor For Extreme Environments"; filed 2005‑12‑06; published 2008‑12‑04. Optical sensor intended for harsh/high-temperature environments (potentially relevant context for gas-turbine sensing). Potentially anticipating: none directly.

12. EP 1,546,683 B1 — Gasera Ltd

• "Photoacoustic detector"; filed 2002‑09‑30; granted/published 2011‑11‑16. Photoacoustic gas detection. Potentially anticipating: none — non-analogous art.

Summary table (potential § 102 targets)

Key conclusions and flags

1. Most relevant prior art overall: the three blade-tip/probe references — US 5,201,227 (Iinuma), US 5,557,099 (Zielinski), and the same-family US 7,984,656 / US 2010/0018321 (Nicklous, UTC) — because they share the exact field (optical NSMS-type probing of rotating gas-turbine airfoils with transmit/receive fibers and lenses). US 6,370,299 (Boeing) is the most relevant lens/fiber-focus reference.
2. No single cited reference appears to anticipate independent claim 1 or claim 7 in full. The distinguishing limitation — a fiber-to-lens transmit gap and a fiber-to-lens receive gap, each based on a focal distance to produce a focused transmit beam and to receive a focused reflected beam — is not squarely disclosed by any one reference. Expect these references to function as a § 103 combination (e.g., an NSMS probe reference + a fiber/lens focal-positioning reference).
3. The strongest anticipation candidates are the dependent claims, not the independent ones: claim 2/8 (rotating airfoil) against Iinuma or Zielinski or Twerdochlib; claims 3–6 and 9–12 (local/ground memory, flight/test cycle) against US 7,984,656.
4. Literal-identifier flags: (a) the patent cites US 5,818,996 A (diffuse reflectance probe, Doyle) — confirm the number is not the similarly-styled 8,189,996; (b) the '156 specification itself contains typographical inconsistencies (e.g., "receive lens 34" and "transmit fiber 31" vs. "33") that should not be propagated into any mapping; (c) the earlier-section "Mathews '615" litigation result concerns a different patent number and is not relevant to US 9,766,156.
5. Date basis: all cited references predate the 2013‑03‑15 priority date, so all are available as prior art subject to final determination of the effective priority date.

I'll research the key prior-art references before building the obviousness analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,766,156 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on the previously generated section: the "Litigation summary" I was handed is a dead end — its searches returned unrelated patents (a Sonos/Google "Mathews '615"). I did not find, and do not assert, any litigation involving US 9,766,156. That is a genuine gap, not a finding. Everything below builds from the authoritative patent text and the prior-art citations listed on the US9766156B2 page (the "Citations (12)/Patent Citations (13)" and "Non-Patent Citations (3)" fields).

A. Framework and threshold assumptions

Governing law — flag this. The application is the §371 national stage of PCT/US2013/076104, filed 2013‑12‑18, claiming §119(e) benefit of US 61/794,533 filed 2013‑03‑15. Because the effective filing date precedes the March 16, 2013 AIA cutover, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (as construed by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)) presumptively governs, and pre‑AIA §102(a)/(b)/(e) define the prior art. Every reference in the citation list predates 2011, so all qualify under either regime — the AIA/pre‑AIA question does not change the outcome here, but it does change the §102 categories the petitioner must plead. I state it as an assumption rather than a conclusion because the actual benefit claim chain should be verified against the file wrapper.

Graham factors. Obviousness is assessed against (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) level of ordinary skill, and (4) objective indicia. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA here would be a mechanical/optical engineer (B.S. + ~2–4 years, or M.S.) with experience designing fiber-coupled optical instrumentation for turbomachinery blade-tip timing, familiar with graded-index/quarter-pitch lenses, fiber-to-lens focal geometry, and NSMS data-acquisition electronics.

B. Reference inventory — what each cited reference actually teaches

C. Primary combination: '656 + '299, optionally + '227 and/or '996

Limitation-by-limitation mapping of claim 1 (and the parallel structural claim 7)

The only limitation not expressly spelled out in '656 alone is the pair of spatially set, focal-distance-based fiber/lens gaps in both the transmit and receive branches. That is precisely what '299 and '227 supply, and the combination is a textbook KSR case.

Why the combination is motivated (KSR rationales)

1. Same problem, same field (rationale: known technique to improve similar device). The '156's own background identifies the problem as unwanted reflections from an unfocused collimated beam corrupting NSMS data. '099 is directed at exactly that problem in exactly that hardware ("Background Signal … < 2%"; displacement of the illumination spot changes the signal). '996 is directed at stray light reflected back into the fiber in a transmit/receive fiber probe. A POSITA improving '656's probe would be led to the focusing/stray-light art.
2. The references themselves supply the "why." '299 states outright that fiber-end offset from the focal point produces convergent/divergent beams and that the receive fiber must sit at the focal point or the focused return "misses the end of the optical fiber." That is the claimed gap-setting step, verbatim in function.
3. Predictable results (rationale: combination of known elements). Setting a lens-to-fiber gap to a computed focal distance, and fixing it, is a routine optical-alignment step that '299 teaches how to perform and then lock in (micropositioner → adhesive/potting). No new principle of operation is required.
4. Common ownership / shared disclosure lineage. '656 and the '156 share the same assignee (United Technologies → Raytheon → RTX). Same-field, same-assignee art is strong evidence that the artisan of ordinary skill would consult it.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. '099 and '227 both worked — '099 reports measured signal-amplitude stability (±20%), and '227's probe was a commercial turbomachinery probe.

D. Dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12

These dependent claims add no structure that distinguishes over '656; they recite intended use of data-handling features '656 already discloses, and are obvious for the same reasons as claims 1/7.

E. Secondary/alternative combinations (for redundancy in a petition)

• '656 + '227 + '099 (avoiding '299): '227 supplies the fiber→lens→spaced-lens transmit/receive probe aimed at rotating blades; '099 supplies focusing of the transmit fiber's beam onto the blade face and the reduced-background-reflection rationale. This combination is arguably even closer to the claim's purpose, since both are gas-turbine blade probes.
• '656 + '996 for the receive branch: '996 is a transmit-and-receive fiber/lens probe whose output lens "creates an image of the input fiber optic cable's surface," with lens tilting used to kill stray back-reflections — directly supporting "receive gap based on the focal distance" plus the '156's stated aim of reducing unwanted light.
• '656 + '014 (Rush): supplies the explicit confocal proposition that distance is a function of the fiber-lens-target focal geometry in a compact, hostile-environment probe.

Three independent, overlapping combinations pointing at the same limitation set makes this a robust §103 position — a petitioner need not win on all three.

F. The strongest non-obviousness counterarguments (and my assessment)

1. "'299 teaches toward collimation, i.e., away from the claimed focused beam." This is the best argument. '299 says flatly: "efficient signal transmission demands that the optical signals be collimated," and warns that offsetting the fiber from the focal point "decreas[es] the concentration of energy that reaches a target spot in the far field." Rebuttal: (a) '299's rationale is explicitly far-field; the NSMS target is a blade tip at a short, near-field, specified standoff (~0.5–2.5 mm per '099), where a focused spot, not a collimated beam, maximizes returning energy and minimizes irrelevant reflections — the '156's own stated mechanism; (b) '299 does not disparage focusing — it describes the convergent/divergent outcome of a focal offset as a designable condition, and '099 and '227 demonstrate focusing to a blade face in the same field. Under KSR, "teaching away" requires a reference that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution; a preference for collimation in a different (far-field) application is at most a competing design choice.
2. "No reference expressly discloses that the receive gap is 'based on the focal distance' — the same focal distance as the transmit side." Also strong. Rebuttal: '299 expressly applies the focal-point criterion to the receive fiber ("the focal point of the received signals misses the end of the optical fiber"), which is functionally identical; and '996's receive lens imaging the transmit fiber face-plus-tilt establishes a determined receive lens/fiber geometry. The claims' "based on the focal distance" language is met by a purposefully aligned receive path, not necessarily by literal numeric identity.
3. "The examiner allowed the claims over this exact art." True — all 12 references were before the examiner and the claims issued. Rebuttal: allowance does not create a presumption of non-obviousness in litigation; and a petitioner can argue the examiner never articulated the '656-as-primary + '299/'227-as-secondary combination with the "reduce unwanted reflections" motivation that the '156's own background supplies as a recognized problem in the art.

Additional flag (§112, not §103): If claim 10 and claim 11's preamble ("The method of claim 7…") is taken literally, claims 10–11 depend from a system claim while reciting "method," and claim 11 likewise recites "The method of claim 7." Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) that is a claim-format defect, but note the rule to interpret identifiers literally: claim 7 is a system claim, so claims 10–11 should be read against claim 7's system structure despite the "method" label. This does not strengthen an obviousness challenge but is worth pleading separately if validity is contested.

G. Objective indicia (Graham factor 4)

The '156's specification asserts improved accuracy via "reduc[ing] unwanted reflected light and thereby reduc[ing] potential signal error." That is a stated advantage, and a patentee would argue it supplies a nexus to the focused/focused configuration. However, in the record available here I see no evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unmet need, industry praise, or copying — the "Cited By" family (US 2022/0107416 A1 and US 11,714,195 B2, both Raytheon) shows continuing technical development by the same assignee, but follow-on improvement is not itself an objective indicium. Absent such evidence, objective indicia are unlikely to overcome a well-articulated KSR combination.

H. Conclusion

• Strongest §103 challenge (claims 1–12): US 7,984,656 (or its publication US 2010/0018321) as the primary reference, in view of US 6,370,299 for the fiber-to-lens focal-distance determination and the setting/fixing of the transmit and receive gaps, and further in view of US 5,207,227 and/or US 5,816,996 for the spaced transmit/receive lens architecture and the stray-light-reduction motivation. Claims 2–6 and 8–12 fall with '656's own disclosure of fan blades, a flight recorder, ground-based processing, and flight/test-cycle operation.
• Confidence in the primary combination: moderate-to-high on claims 1 and 7 (the focal-gap limitations are squarely met by '299, whose receive-path language is nearly a mirror-image of the claim), and high on claims 2–6 and 8–12 (expressly disclosed by '656).
• Principal vulnerability: '299's express preference for collimation — the patentee's best teaching-away argument. The counter is that '299's collimation rationale is far-field specific while the '156's NSMS target is a near-field blade tip, a distinction the cited turbine-blade probes ('099, '227) demonstrate was already understood in this art.
• Unverified item I will not fabricate: I found no litigation history for US 9,766,156, and I have not verified the actual USPTO examination record or any post-grant challenge. Column/line pinpoint cites are avoided where I could only confirm quotes via secondary reproductions (notably the '227 text, which I have only as quoted inside US 5,557,099 and would need the '227 specification itself to cite precisely).