US 9995722

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any 2026 CAFC or USPTO activity.

US 9,995,722 B2 — Analyst Summary

Method note / caveat: I gathered this from the full patent text supplied in your message plus live web searches (Google Patents/Justia, PTAB and Federal Circuit docket aggregators, Law360 headlines). I could not query USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system directly, so litigation-status statements below are second-hand and should be verified at the primary sources before being relied on.

Bibliographic data (as stated in the authoritative full text)

Uncertainty: I did not independently verify the maintenance-fee lapse underlying the "Expired – Fee Related" label, nor the exact provisional application numbers (the specification text references 2012-12-31 and 2013-01-21 filings via the related-family text; e.g., EP 3184038 lists US 61/747,477 of 2012-12-31 and 61/754,698 of 2013-01-21).

Abstract (as published)

A measurement system includes a light source having semiconductor sources configured to generate an input optical beam, a multiplexer configured to form an intermediate optical beam from the input optical beam, fibers including a fused silica fiber configured to receive the intermediate optical beam and to form an output optical beam. The output optical beam comprises wavelengths between 700 and 2500 nanometers with a bandwidth of at least 10 nanometers. A measurement apparatus is configured to deliver the output beam to a sample to generate a spectroscopy output beam. A receiver is configured to receive and process the spectroscopy output beam to generate an output signal, wherein the receiver processing includes chemometrics or multivariate analysis methods to permit identification of materials within the sample, the light source and the receiver are remote from the sample, and the sample includes plastics or food industry goods.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — "Measurement system" (apparatus): A SWIR/NIR super-continuum-style spectroscopy system with three parts:

1. Light source built from (a) multiple semiconductor sources producing an input beam, (b) a multiplexer combining them into an intermediate beam, and (c) one or more fibers, at least one being fused silica, that emit the output beam. The output beam spans some wavelengths between 700 nm and 2500 nm and has ≥10 nm bandwidth.
2. Measurement apparatus that takes the beam and delivers it to a sample, producing a "spectroscopy output beam" (i.e., reflected/scattered/transmitted light carrying the sample's spectral signature).
3. Receiver that detects a ≥10 nm-wide portion of that spectroscopy beam and processes it — the processing must use chemometrics or multivariate analysis methods to permit identification of materials in the sample.
   Limiting conditions: the light source and receiver are remote from the sample (stand-off/remote sensing), and the sample comprises plastics or food industry goods.

Claim 7 — "Measurement system" (apparatus): Same functional architecture (semiconductor sources → multiplexer → fiber comprising fused silica; 700–2500 nm, ≥10 nm bandwidth; delivery apparatus; receiver using chemometrics/multivariate analysis to permit material identification). Added requirements: the output signal is based at least in part on a chemical composition of the sample, and the spectroscopy output beam contains spectral features of hydrocarbons or organic compounds. This is the claim that ties the patent to its hydrocarbon/natural-gas subject matter.

Claim 16 — "Measurement system" (apparatus): Same architecture again, with the output signal based on a chemical composition of the sample, where the sample comprises tissue including collagen and lipids. (This is a tissue-diagnostics claim, largely independent of the natural-gas title; dependent claims 17–19 add remote/diffuse-reflection operation, delivery through a needle, and distinguishing normal from cancerous tissue.)

Character of the claims: All three independent claims are apparatus/system claims; there are no independent method claims in this patent. Conversely, the specification is far broader than the title — it covers methane/ethane detection and micro-seepage exploration, but also oil spills, minerals, vegetation, greenhouse gases, building materials, plastics, explosives, paints, drugs, food quality, and tissue — which is why the independent claims read onto plastics/food goods, hydrocarbons/organics, and collagen/lipid tissue rather than gas detection alone.

Litigation / post-grant context (second-hand; not verified against primary dockets)

• This patent's own family is flagged by Google Patents as having worldwide family litigation ("Family has litigation," Darts-IP family 51538260). That flag is family-level, not evidence of a case on the '722 patent itself.
• The well-documented Omni MedSci disputes concern later, different patents in the same portfolio — principally US 10,517,484 (wearable semiconductor-diode physiological sensor) and US 9,651,533 — not the '722:
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), No. 2:18-cv-134-RWS (E.D. Tex.), standing/ownership appeal (UMich Bylaw 3.10) — CAFC held no present automatic assignment to the University of Michigan.
• Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2021-00453 (P.T.A.B.) on US 10,517,484 → CAFC No. 2023-1034, decided June 21, 2024, "AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED" (nonprecedential; Reyna, Cunningham, Albright) on the "configured to identify an object" vs. "configured to detect an object" limitations. Board Final Written Decision on remand, Feb. 14, 2025; Omni's Notice of Appeal filed Apr. 11, 2025 (a further CAFC appeal that would be pending in 2026).
• [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) v. Omni MedSci, PGR2025-00063, plus IPR2025-01250 and IPR2025-01253 (2025) — also directed to the wearable-device patents (US 11,160,455 and related).
• Law360 headline dated May 19, 2026: the PTAB "will no longer conduct an inter partes review into the validity of an Omni MedSci wearable device patent, now that there will be a separate post-grant review."

Explicit uncertainty: Searching for a CAFC 2026 docket specifically identifying US 9,995,722 returned nothing. I found no 2026 appeal, IPR, PGR, or district-court case squarely asserted on the '722 patent. The 2026 Omni MedSci activity I found concerns the wearable-sensor patents (e.g., the '484 family), which share the same specification lineage but are separate patents from the '722. If a '722-specific 2026 proceeding exists, it did not surface in these searches and I cannot confirm or deny it.

Practical bottom line

US 9,995,722 is a 2018-granted, single-inventor (Islam) Omni MedSci patent on a fused-silica-fiber, multiplexed-semiconductor light source producing ≥10 nm bandwidth in the 700–2500 nm window, combined with a stand-off measurement head and a chemometrics/multivariate-analysis receiver. Its three independent claims respectively target plastics/food industry goods (claim 1), hydrocarbons/organic compounds (claim 7), and collagen/lipid-bearing tissue (claim 16). It sits in a large continuation family from a 2012-12-31 priority date, its listed status is "Expired – Fee Related" with an anticipated 2033-12-17 expiration, and the high-profile Omni MedSci litigation I can find concerns related-but-different patents in the same portfolio.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9995722/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180120280 (full claim set) ; https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/06/21/apple_inc._v._omni_medsci_inc..pdf ; https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-00453/Apple_Inc._v._Omni_MedSci_Inc/ ; https://www.law360.com/ip/news (May 19, 2026 headline).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9995722 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted sources for litigation involving this specific patent.

Let me search specifically for whether the '722 patent was asserted in any complaint.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 9,995,722

Bottom line

Based on my searches, I could not confirm that US 9,995,722 (the '722 patent) has itself been asserted as a patent‑in‑suit in any district court litigation. The '722 patent is a member of the Omni MedSci, Inc. ("Omni") patent family that has been the subject of extensive litigation and PTAB challenges — and Google Patents flags the family with a "Family has litigation" indicator (Darts‑ip family 51538260) — but in the litigation and PTAB records I retrieved, the '722 appears only as a related family patent in mandatory‑notice listings, not as an asserted claim set.

I want to be explicit about this limitation: my search did not surface a complaint or docket naming the '722 as an asserted patent. It is possible litigation exists that my searches did not reach (see caveats at the end).

What the '722 patent is

• Patent: US 9,995,722 B2 — "Short‑wave infrared super‑continuum lasers for natural gas leak detection, exploration, and other active remote sensing applications"
• Inventor: Mohammed N. Islam
• Original/current assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI)
• Application: 15/855,201 (a continuation; priority claimed from 15/357,225); filed 2017‑12‑27; granted 2018‑06‑12
• Priority date: 2012‑12‑31
• Status shown on Google Patents: Expired – Fee Related; anticipated expiration 2033‑12‑17
• Family flag: Google Patents lists "Family has litigation" linking to Darts‑ip family 51538260 (a family‑level indicator, not proof that the '722 specifically was asserted)

Where the '722 shows up in litigation‑related records

In PTAB filings, the '722 is listed among Omni's related patents in mandatory notices — i.e., as family/related‑matter context:

• Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., PGR2025‑00063 — Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice lists "9,995,722" among Omni's patents (also appears in the updated notice dated Nov. 19, 2025).
• WHOOP, Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025‑01583 — Omni's mandatory notice lists "U.S. Patent No. 9,995,722" among related patents (notices dated Oct. 17, 2025).
• File‑history exhibits confirm the '722 is the parent from which 16004154 (US 10,126,283) descends, tying it into the Omni portfolio at issue in the Samsung IPRs/PGRs.

In each instance, the '722 is presented as a family/related patent, alongside numerous other Omni patents (e.g., 9,993,159; 9,897,584; 9,885,698; 9,861,286; 9,797,876; 9,757,040; etc.). I found no document asserting that the '722 was pleaded as a patent‑in‑suit.

The Omni MedSci litigation landscape (for context — these involve related, not necessarily the '722, patents)

Because the '722 sits in the heavily litigated Omni family, here are the cases I identified. I could not verify from the retrieved materials that the '722 itself was asserted in any of them, and I am listing them only as family context:

Apple litigation (district court):

Apple PTAB proceedings: IPR2019‑00914 ('286), IPR2019‑00916 ('533), IPR2019‑00917 ('040), IPR2020‑00029 ('546), IPR2020‑00175 ('299), IPR2021‑00453 ('484).

Federal Circuit appeals: Apple v. Omni MedSci, Nos. 2021‑1229 ('533) and 2021‑2213 ('299); No. 23‑1034 ('484, decided June 21, 2024, remanding); Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 25‑1646 (second '484 appeal).

Samsung litigation:

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.), No. 2:24‑cv‑01070‑JRG‑RSP (E.D. Tex.)
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 2:25‑cv‑00483 (E.D. Tex.)
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26‑cv‑00356 (E.D. Tex.) — filed January 2026

WHOOP litigation:

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 1:25‑cv‑00140‑JLH (D. Del.)

Samsung PTAB proceedings: IPR2025‑01249 ('868), ‑01250 ('533), ‑01251 ('304), ‑01252 ('455), ‑01253 ('790), ‑01254 ('475); PGR2025‑00063 ('475), PGR2025‑00064 ('790).

Important caveats

1. No confirmed '722 assertion. Despite the family's heavy litigation volume, I found no record that the '722 patent was itself asserted in a complaint or made subject to a PTAB challenge. I am not asserting it was — only that I could not confirm it.
2. I was unable to directly query Unified Patents' litigation caselist, PACER, or Darts‑ip (the family link points to patents.darts-ip.com/?family=51538260) in this session. A definitive answer would require checking those sources directly against the '722 patent number, and confirming whether it ever appears in an asserted‑claims election or infringement contention.
3. Patent‑number precision. Some search results returned unrelated items bearing similar identifiers (e.g., a Volvo Penta tool "9995722" and similarly numbered patents). I have excluded those as not relevant to US 9,995,722.
4. Case numbers, dates, and outcomes above are drawn from PTAB filings, courtlistener, Justia, and PacerMonitor results retrieved in this session; docket statuses change, so treat the "current status" column as of the retrieval date.

If you need a definitively sourced assertion history for the '722 specifically, the next step would be a direct Docket Navigator or Darts‑ip search on the exact number, plus a review of the operative complaints in Omni MedSci v. Samsung (2:24‑cv‑01070 and 2:26‑cv‑00356) and Omni MedSci v. WHOOP (1:25‑cv‑00140) to see whether the '722 is among the pleaded patents.

I'll start by verifying the structured block's default against live sources, since the ODP ingest may lag or miss older/recently-filed proceedings.

The first-pass results are contaminated by other patents (notably Centripetal's and IV's unrelated '722 patents, and Omni MedSci's sibling patents '533/'286/'040/'484/'790). Let me pin the search to US 9,995,722 specifically.

The results so far cover Omni MedSci's wearable-device family ('533, '286, '040, '546, '484, '304, '790) but not the '722. Let me pin down whether 9,995,722 itself — the SWIR/super-continuum patent — was ever challenged.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,995,722: 0. Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and my web search corroborated that default rather than contradicting it: I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 9,995,722 as the challenged patent. The bottom line for a defendant is therefore neither "hardened" nor "gutted" — the claims of the '722 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. You get no free cancellation record and no adverse Final Written Decision to work around; you also face no § 315(e)(2) estoppel flowing from this patent (the estoppel that exists in this family is attached to sibling patents — see below).

Important caveat on confidence. I hit my search-step limit before I could exhaustively re-query PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions and the Unified Patents portal specifically for the '722 (as opposed to its siblings). Everything below is grounded in what I could retrieve; treat "zero proceedings" as high-confidence but not audit-grade. Before relying on it, run a direct PTAB E2E party search on "Omni MedSci" and a patent-number search on 9,995,722.

No proceedings to enumerate

Per the task's instruction not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not creating entries for the family's other proceedings. But because a defendant will inevitably see these case numbers in the patent's file history and in Omni's litigation posture, here is what they are not: none of the following challenged the '722 —

False positives to avoid. Two unrelated patents numbered "'722" surface in PTAB/CAFC literature and are not this patent: US 9,413,722 (Centripetal Networks v. Cisco, IPR2018-01760) and the Intellectual Ventures '722 at issue in the American Airlines / Southwest IPRs. Do not cite either against US 9,995,722.

The only real link between 9,995,722 and the PTAB is as a listed related patent in Apple's mandatory notices in IPR2021-00453 (the '484 IPR): the petition identifies "U.S. Patent No. 9,995,722" among the '484 patent's related issued patents. Being named in a notice is not a challenge.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. There is no FWD that cancels or sustains any claim of 9,995,722, so no claim is "dead" and no claim is "blessed." Anyone telling you the '722 has been "narrowed through IPR" or "upheld" is conflating it with the '533/'484/'299 line. Because nothing was challenged, there are no surviving-amendment claims to inventory and no certificate of cancellation to cite.

Estoppel landscape is clean — for now. With no FWD on the '722, no petitioner is estopped under § 315(e)(2) as to this patent, and no third party has gotten a "bite at the apple." That cuts both ways: (i) as a defendant, you may still raise any § 102/§ 103 printed-publication ground in an IPR against the '722 (subject to the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of an infringement complaint), and you may raise § 112 and public-use/system-art grounds freely in district court, because no IPR estoppel exists; and (ii) conversely, the heavy FWDs on the sibling patents do not help Omni or bind you here — claim language differs, and the '533/'484 holdings are not res judicata as to the '722.

Two family-level pattern signals matter more than the '722 itself. First, the family is a serial-litigation asset: Omni (a self-described NPE/individual per Unified Patents' portal) has sued Apple, Samsung, Whoop, Fossil, Oura and OnePlus on the wearable siblings, and the PTAB has repeatedly cancelled claims — the '533 all-challenged-claims-invalidated FWD and the two-round '484 FWD show the portfolio is vulnerable to well-financed obviousness challenges, with the Larose-type "identify an object" limitation the recurring fulcrum. Second, the PGR-eligibility battle that decided the '790 (Omni asserts a 2012-12-31 priority date, yet the Director found the '790 PGR-eligible and NOT IPR-eligible, vacating the Samsung IPR on 2026-05-19) is directly relevant here: the '722 also claims 2012-12-31 priority, so the same "is this really an AIA patent?" fault line is likely to recur on any '722 challenge. Note no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) proceeding appears in the chain.

One non-PTAB fact a defendant must verify immediately. Google Patents' legal-status field for US 9,995,722 (as fetched 2026-09-22) reads "Expired – Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of 2033-12-17. If that status is accurate, the patent lapsed for non-payment of a maintenance fee and is unenforceable absent revival — which would moot the entire IPR question. Google's legal status is an assumption and can lag; confirm against USPTO Patent Center maintenance-fee records before building any defense around it.

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the negative. Run PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions party + patent-number searches for "Omni MedSci" and 9,995,722, and check the Unified Patents portal and CourtListener for any recently-filed petition not yet in ODP. If the zero holds, say so plainly — the absence of any IPR on a patent in a family this heavily litigated is itself a signal (it may mean the '722 was never asserted, or that targets settled/opted not to petition).
• Verify maintenance-fee status first. Pull the Patent Center fee history for 9,995,722. "Expired – Fee Related" would be a complete defense; if it lapsed, check the § 41(c) / 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 revival window and whether it was revived. This is the cheapest, highest-leverage check available.
• If the patent is live and you've been served, watch the § 315(b) clock. The IPR petition is barred one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '722. No family proceeding can be imported for that deadline.
• Score the IPR-vs-PGR question early. Given the 2012-12-31 priority date, the '722 appears pre-AIA and thus IPR-only, not PGR — unless a challenger can show a challenged claim lacks written-description support in the pre-2013-03-16 application (the exact theory that flipped the '790 to PGR-eligible in PGR2026-00003 and killed the parallel IPR2025-01253). Model both paths before filing.
• Mine (don't transplant) the sibling FWDs. Apple's Lisogurski/Carlson/Isaacson/Tran obviousness record and the Anthony expert declarations from IPR2019-00916 and IPR2021-00453 are public and re-usable against the '722 to the extent the claim language overlaps — but remember they carried no estoppel as to this patent and bind no one.
• If a proceeding does exist that I could not retrieve, the decision source to cite is PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) for the FWD and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) for any CAFC appeal; I flagged the specific case numbers above only for family context and deliberately did not attribute any '722 claim-level disposition to them.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 9,995,722. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me dig for the actual recorded assignment entries and any post-issuance transfers.

Retrieval caveat — read first. I was not able to query the USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session (the search tool cut off before I could pull the record for patent 9,995,722). I also could not retrieve any reel/frame number for this patent from secondary sources. Per the operating rules, I will not fabricate reel/frame values. Everything below is labeled by source strength: (A) primary/authoritative full text, (B) court/PTAB record or reputable legal analysis, (C) derived index (Google Patents), (D) unverified/not found. You should treat the assignment timeline as incomplete pending a live Assignment Center query at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search by patent number and by application 15/855,201).

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: The classic red flag ("all inventors depart the original assignee within 12 months") does not apply — there is only one inventor, and he is also the principal of the assignee company. The genuinely unusual pattern here is a title dispute, not an inventor departure: the 2012 provisional applications were filed during a UM-approved unpaid leave of absence, and UM's Office of Technology Transfer denied Dr. Islam's 2013 request to confirm his ownership, asserting that UM Bylaw 3.10 made the inventions university property. UM filed an amicus brief against Omni's ownership position. The Fed. Cir. held the "shall be the property of" language was not a present automatic assignment, so Islam's assignment to Omni survived. (B) This is relevant to any assignment chain because it is a documented cloud on title that a downstream purchaser would have to diligence.

Related entity note: court records also reference Cheetah Omni, LLC (a 2003 Islam entity) and correspondence in the file history is addressed to "Brooks, Kushman P.C./Cheetah Omni MedSci." (B) These are related Islam-side vehicles, not arms-length assignees.

Original assignee

Omni MedSci, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI) — original and, per the derived index, current assignee. (A)(C)

• Entity type: small private biomedical-laser / optics technology company founded by the named inventor. It is best characterized as an IP-and-commercialization vehicle built around one inventor's portfolio, not a mass-market manufacturer. (B) (Press/case coverage describes OMS as Dr. Islam's company, focused on near- and mid-IR broadband lasers.)
• Product embodying the claims: No evidence found that Omni MedSci sells a product practicing the '722 claims (a SWIR super-continuum stand-off spectroscopy system). I did not find a product line for it. (D) — treat as "not found," not as proof of absence.
• Litigation posture: Omni MedSci sued Apple in 2018 (E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-134, later N.D. Cal.), asserting US 9,651,533 and 9,861,286 — sibling patents in the same 2012 family, not the '722. (B) Coverage (e.g., Hungarian IP Office review, 2018) notes OMS filed in E.D. Tex. and characterizes it as a patent-assertion campaign; other press described Dr. Islam as a prolific inventor and company founder.
• Current status: Operating as of the last public record (still listed as current assignee). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition found. Note, however, that this patent is listed "Expired – Fee Related" with a 2033-12-17 anticipated expiration, meaning at least this member of the portfolio lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees — a sign the company narrowed what it chose to maintain. (C)

Assignment timeline

Finding: I could not retrieve the recorded reel/frame entries, so this timeline is incomplete and is offered only as far as the record supports.

Documents the assignment system should contain for this patent, per the record I could reach:

• 2013-12-17 (executed) / recorded ~Dec 2013–early 2014 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignee's interest)
  • Assignor: Mohammed N. Islam (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, MI 48075 — this is the firm of record throughout the Omni portfolio (e.g., David S. Bir, Reg. No., signed Omni's '533 filings). Correspondent recurrence note: Brooks Kushman appears as the correspondent on the entire Omni MedSci family; it is a general-practice IP firm, not an NPE-only filer, so a single/repeated appearance here is not an NPE finding. (B)
  • Context: Founder-to-own-company transfer of the 2012 foundational applications; rights to continuations such as 15/855,201 (the '722) flow from this lineage. (B)

• 2012-12-31 (priority date) / 2017-12-27 (filing of 15/855,201) / 2018-06-12 (grant) — these are prosecution events, not assignments. (A)

• No post-issuance assignment of the '722 to any third party surfaced in my searches. (D) Because I could not open the Assignment Center record, I cannot confirm or exclude a later-recorded transfer, security interest, or correction.

Flag vs. prior section: This is consistent with the previously generated summary, which also found no 2026 proceeding specifically identifying the '722. Both the earlier section and this one are limited by the same gap — no direct Assignment Center pull.

Per the task instructions, if the Assignment Center shows no records at all, the honest statement would be "no recorded assignments." I cannot make that statement: the record does appear to contain at least the 2013 Islam→Omni assignment, but I could not verify it at the primary source, so I am not stopping here — I continue below with the caveat that signals are scored on incomplete data.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9995722
    2012 : Provisionals filed during UM leave
    2013 : Islam assigns rights to Omni MedSci
         : UM asserts competing ownership claim
    2017 : Continuation 15/855201 filed
    2018 : Patent issued to Omni MedSci
         : Omni sues Apple on sibling patents
    2033 : Listed term end 2033-12-17

(Reel/frame values intentionally omitted — not retrieved.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Additional non-signal risk worth flagging: the UM Bylaw 3.10 title dispute functions as a standing/ownership risk, which is a different category from NPE patterning but matters to any buyer. The Fed. Cir. resolved it in Omni's favor (denial of Apple's motion to dismiss affirmed), so the chain is presumptively intact. (B)

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The only ownership link I can support from the record is the original 2013-12-17 assignment from sole inventor Mohammed N. Islam to his own company, Omni MedSci, Inc., with Brooks Kushman P.C. as correspondent of record — who is a legitimate general-practice IP firm rather than an NPE-only filer, and where a single assignee prevents any recurrence analysis. I found no post-issuance transfer to any NPE, asserter, or defensive aggregator, and no bankruptcy/reorg/fire-sale, but because I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center this session (and retrieved no reel/frame for the one assignment that the court record implies), I cannot rule out unrecorded or later-recorded transfers. On the task's own rubric, "only the original assignment" with unverified records maps to Insufficient data — not a positive NPE call.

Verify at the primary source: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9,995,722 and application 15/855,201) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Cross-check Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9995722/en and the PTAB Samsung proceedings (PGR2025-00063, IPR2025-01250/01251/01253) for any ownership statements about the Omni portfolio.

Primary sources used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9995722/en (bibliographic + derived assignee/status) ; https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/[2139826](/patent/2139826).html (Omni MedSci v. Apple, Fed. Cir. 2021) ; https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2021/08/federal-circuit-assignment-employment-agreement/ and https://natlawreview.com/article/employee-agreement-what-shall-be-future-promise-not-present-assignment (2013-12-17 assignment to Omni) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/PGR2025-00063/... (Omni file histories showing Brooks Kushman P.C. / David S. Bir as correspondent, and the continuation chain from 15/855,201) ; https://www.vorys.com/... (sibling-patent family ownership summary).

I'll research the prior-art citations on the face of US 9,995,722. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me try to retrieve the actual front-page citations from USPTO/Justia.

Let me look at the sibling/parent patents in this family, which typically share the same cited references.

US 9,995,722 — Prior-Art (Front-Page "References Cited") Analysis

Important upfront finding — read this before the tables. I was not able to retrieve the authoritative "(56) References Cited" block of US 9,995,722 in this session. The full patent text supplied in your message (the authoritative source) is truncated — it begins mid-specification and omits the entire front page, so it contains no U.S. Patent Documents list, no Foreign Patent Documents list, and no "Other Publications" list. My live searches for the '722's own citation table returned the patent's Info/Classification/Related-family sections but never the citations table, and searches for the number were heavily polluted by unrelated uses of the string "9995722" (a Volvo Penta special tool no. 9995722, and a Tesco Corporation Form 4 filing tagged "9995722"). Per your rule I excluded those as not the patent.

Because the strict rule is do not fabricate, I will not invent a citation list. Below I (a) state what is verified, (b) give the best indirect evidence of the family's cited references — clearly labeled as indirect, (c) tell you exactly where the definitive list lives, and (d) give a § 102 framework you can apply the moment you have the real list.

1. Verified bibliographic anchor (from the authoritative text)

Because the effective priority date is 2012-12-31 but the application was filed 2017-12-27 (post-AIA), any cited reference must be checked against both the pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) and AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) regimes depending on whether the '722's claims are entitled to the 2012-12-31 priority. A reference that is prior art under AIA § 102 but post-dates 2012-12-31 may not be citable if the priority claim holds.

2. What I could establish indirectly (labeled: NOT verified as the '722's own list)

Sibling Omni MedSci patents descending from the same disclosure/priority cite two clusters, which are the clusters one should expect on the '722 face page:

(a) The inventor's own earlier "super-continuum / fiber light source" patents and applications (self-citations). These recur across the Omni family front pages (e.g., the (56) blocks visible in US 10,928,374, US 10,172,523, US 10,004,402, US 10,874,304):

• US 6,374,006; 6,480,656; 6,549,702; 6,603,910; 6,631,025; 6,760,148; 6,865,978; 6,885,498; 6,943,936 — all Islam et al.
• US 7,209,657; 7,209,877; 7,259,906; 7,263,288; 7,294,105; 7,294,165; 7,307,416; 7,433,116 (Infra-red light source including a Raman shifter); 7,519,252; 7,519,253 — all Islam.
• US 8,472,103; 8,472,108 — Islam.
• US 9,164,032; 9,615,533; 9,757,040; 9,861,286; 9,885,698; 10,188,299; 10,213,113 — Islam/Omni.
• Pre-grant pubs: US 2006/0245461 (Islam); 2006/0268393 (Islam); 2009/002873 (Islam); 2009/0204110 (Islam); 2012/0239013 (Islam); 2013/0274569 (Islam); 2014/0236021 (Islam); 2016/0327476 (Islam).

Caveat: these lists are drawn from other Omni/Islam patents, not from the '722's own (56) block. They are strong predictors of the '722's self-citation cluster, not proof of it.

(b) Third-party references appearing in the same family's IDS's: e.g., US 2002/0013518 (West et al.), 2002/0019584 (Schulze), 2002/0032468 (Hill), 2002/0082612 (Moll), 2002/0109621 (Khair), 2002/0115914 (Russ), 2002/0128846 (Miller), 2002/0178003 (Gehrke), 2003/0022126 (Buchalla), 2003/0107739 & 2003/0109055 (Lehmann), Von Drasek, 2004/0174914 (Fukatsu), 2004/0240037 (Harter), 2005/0049468 (Carlson), 2005/0111500 (Harter), 2005/0133691 (Doppke), 2005/0209516 (Fraden), 2006/0058683 (Chance), 2006/0198397 (Korolev), 2006/0223032 (Fried), 2006/0281982 (Grata), 2007/0021670 (Mandelis), 2007/0078348 (Holman).

Caveat: this cluster is taken from the wearable/physiological patents in the family, whose IDS's are even broader than the SWIR/natural-gas line. Do not treat it as the '722's list.

Separate, weaker data point: an international search report associated with the Omni PCT line (PCT/US2013/071235, the '722's family) reportedly cited US 2009/0297404 A1 (Shannon et al.), US 2008/0079408 A1 (Hasegawa), US 6,509,542, US 6,020,794 (Wilber), and JP 2002-367982 A. I flag this as uncertain — my retrieval could not confirm the document-to-application mapping, and several of these look off-topic for SWIR spectroscopy. Treat as a lead to verify, not a finding.

3. § 102 framework for the three independent claims (apply once you have the verified list)

All three independent claims are apparatus/system claims. They are lengthy multi-element claims, so anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element, arranged as claimed. A reference that discloses only the light source, or only the receiver, cannot anticipate — it could at most support § 103.

Claim 1 elements (must all appear in one reference):

1. Light source: (i) plurality of semiconductor sources → input beam; (ii) multiplexer → intermediate beam; (iii) ≥1 fiber comprising a fused-silica fiber → output beam;
2. Output beam spanning wavelengths between 700 nm and 2500 nm, bandwidth ≥ 10 nm;
3. Measurement apparatus delivering the beam to a sample;
4. Receiver detecting a ≥10 nm-wide portion of the spectroscopy beam and processing using chemometrics or multivariate analysis to permit material identification;
5. Light source and receiver remote from the sample; and
6. Sample comprises plastics or food industry goods.

Claim 7: elements 1–5, plus output signal based on chemical composition, and spectroscopy beam containing hydrocarbon/organic-compound spectral features.

Claim 16: elements 1–4, plus output signal based on chemical composition, sample = tissue including collagen and lipids (dependents add remote/diffuse reflection, needle delivery, and cancer-vs-normal discrimination).

Practical implication: elements 3–6 (remote stand-off head + chemometrics/multivariate receiver + the specific sample limitation) are the least likely to be found in any single pre-2012 reference. A § 102 challenge on these claims would most plausibly ride on (a) Omni's own earlier applications that claim the same fused-silica-fiber SWIR supercontinuum source combined with reflectance spectroscopy (the self-citation cluster in §2(a)), or (b) a third-party SWIR hyperspectral reflectance/chemometrics reference. Everything turns on the actual list.

4. Where to get the definitive, citable list (verification steps I could not complete here)

1. USPTO Patent Center / Patent Full-Text (patft) → US 9,995,722 → "References Cited" — the (56) block. This is the ground truth for "each patent citation for 9995722."
2. The '722's file wrapper (IFW) — the PTO-892 "Notice of References Cited" and the applicant's IDS (SB/08) show exactly which references the examiner relied on vs. which the applicant merely submitted. Anticipation weight attaches to examiner-applied references, not to a bulk IDS.
3. Google Patents → US9995722B2 → "Patent Citations" / "Cited By" tables (the tables did not render in my fetches; they exist on the page).
4. The sibling patents with the identical disclosure — US 9,500,634 (app. 14/650,981, "Short-wave infrared super-continuum lasers for natural gas leak detection…") and US 9,797,876 (app. 15/357,225) — their (56) blocks are the closest proxy and will give you the real SWIR-specific citation set to then confirm against the '722.

Bottom line

I could not retrieve US 9,995,722's front-page citations, and I will not reconstruct them from memory or from unrelated same-string hits. The verified front page is simply absent from the material available to me. The self-citation and third-party clusters in §2 are indirect indicators (drawn from sibling Omni/Islam patents), not the '722's list, and must not be cited as such. To answer "for each citation, does it anticipate claim X under § 102," the operative document is the PTO-892 / (56) block in the '722's own Patent Center record, which should be pulled directly. If you can supply that front-page text (or the IFW PDF), I will map each reference to claims 1/7/16 and their dependents element-by-element immediately.

I'll first try to retrieve the actual "Prior Art" / cited-references section for this patent, since the captured page text was truncated before reaching it.

The captured page text was truncated before the prior-art/citations section. Let me try to retrieve the actual cited references from the patent's own record and its PCT counterpart.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,995,722 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sources, and caveats

Source of the "Prior Art" material used here. The Google Patents text supplied in your message was truncated mid-description and never reached the citations block. I therefore used the "Referenced Cited" section as printed on the face of the patent, retrieved from the Justia publication record for its pre-grant publication US 2018/0120280 A1 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/20180120280 — "Referenced Cited: U.S. Patent Documents" / Non-Patent Documents), plus the duplicate listing at https://companyprofiles.justatic.com/patent/[9995722](/patent/9995722), which also supplies the examiner of record (Primary Examiner Tarifur Chowdhury; Assistant Examiner Md M Rahman) and the full 20-claim set. I did not obtain the Google Patents "Similar Documents" or "Cited By" tabs, and I did not read the full text of the cited references — mappings below rest on the titles, dates, and authors as recorded in the patent's own IDS, plus what those titles/art units plainly establish. That is a real evidentiary limit and I flag it rather than paper over it.

Date flag. My operating instructions say today is 2026‑09‑22; the task prompt says 2026‑04‑26. I have used the prompt's date for "current" statements and treat the discrepancy as unresolved.

Contradictions with the earlier-generated sections (flagged as instructed):

Statutory framework (this matters enormously here). The '722 issued from an application filed 2017‑12‑27 claiming benefit back to 2012‑12‑31. If every claim is entitled to the 2012‑12‑31 effective filing date, the pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103 regime governs (consistent with how the Board framed art in the sibling IPR2025‑01252 exhibit, which pleaded "§102(a) and (d) (AIA) or §102(a) and (e) (pre‑AIA)"). Two consequences:

1. References published after 2012‑12‑31 cannot be prior art to these claims. In this IDS that excludes at least Ayvaz et al. (Analytical Methods, 2013), Rein & Rodriguez‑Saona (2013), US 9,207,121 (Adler, Dec. 2015), and WO 2013/012938 — all of which I therefore do not use below.
2. Islam's own earlier patents cited in the IDS (US 6,381,391; 6,762,148; 6,885,498; 7,209,657; 7,259,906; 7,263,288; 7,294,105; 7,433,116; 7,519,253; 8,472,108; etc.) are the inventor's own work. Whether they qualify as "prior art" turns on the "by others" requirement of pre‑AIA § 102(e) and the common-ownership exception of pre‑AIA § 103(c). I mark them as secondary/§ 103(c)-at-risk art, and lean primarily on non-applicant references.
3. The converse risk: if any claim is not entitled to the 2012‑12‑31 benefit (e.g., no support in 61/747,485), the AIA applies, and then applicant's own WO 2014/143276 A2, published 2014‑09‑18 (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014143276A2/en), plus the intervening food-plastics and SC literature, become § 102(a)(1) art. That is a powerful alternative attack.

1. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Standard. Graham v. John Deere: scope/content of the claims, differences over the prior art, level of ordinary skill, and objective indicia. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex: a combination is obvious where (a) elements were known and combined by known methods to yield predictable results; (b) a known element is substituted for another to obtain a predictable result; (c) a known technique is used to improve a similar device in the same way; or (d) a known technique is applied to a known method ready for improvement. A teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required; the motivation may come from the nature of the problem, the prior art's own disclosure, or common sense. Reasonable expectation of success, not certainty, is the touchstone.

Level of skill. A POSITA here would hold an M.S. or Ph.D. in physics, optics, or electrical engineering, with ~2–5 years of experience in fiber lasers/supercontinuum light sources or in NIR/SWIR spectroscopy instrumentation, and would be familiar with (i) multiplexing laser diodes and combining/fiber-coupling their outputs, (ii) the C–H/O–H/N–H overtone and combination band assignments in 700–2500 nm, (iii) stand-off/diffuse-reflectance measurement heads, and (iv) chemometric/PLS/multivariate treatment of NIR spectra. The claims span three different "sample" domains (plastics/food, hydrocarbons, tissue), and the notional POSITA for each would additionally know that domain's routine NIR QC practice.

2. Claim construction: the limitations that decide the case

3. The prior-art landscape on the face of the '722 (selected, pre‑2013)

Gas/hydrocarbon sensing & remote sensing: Werle et al., "Near- and mid-infrared laser-optical sensors for gas analysis," Optics and Lasers in Engineering 37:101‑114 (2002); Tolton, "A concept for a gas-filter correlation radiometer to remotely sense the atmospheric carbon dioxide column from space," J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 21:837‑852 (2004); Nunnally et al., "Wide field of view solar occultation gas filter correlation radiometer for stratospheric methane measurements…," SPIE 5073:122‑130 (2003); US 8,198,589 (Tolton et al., Jun. 12, 2012).

Hydrocarbon reflectance spectroscopy / microseepage: Clark et al., "Reflectance Spectroscopy of organic compounds: 1. Alkanes," J. Geophys. Res. 114:EO3001 (2009); Xu et al., "Exploring for natural gas using reflectance spectra of surface soils," Adv. Space Res. 41:1800‑1817 (2008); Van der Meer et al., Terra Nova 14(1):1‑17 (2002); McCoy et al., Oil & Gas Journal 40‑45 (May 28, 2001); Khan & Jacobson, GSA Bulletin 120(1/2):96‑105 (2008); Kuhn et al., Int. J. Remote Sensing 25(12):2467‑2473 (2004); Andreoli et al., EUR 22739 EN (2007).

SWIR supercontinuum & stand-off detection: Kumar, Islam et al., "Stand-off detection of solid targets with diffuse reflection spectroscopy using a high-power mid-infrared supercontinuum source," Applied Optics 51(15):2794‑2807 (May 20, 2012); Alexander et al., "Modulation instability high power all-fiber supercontinuum lasers and their applications," Optical Fiber Technology 18:349‑374 (2012); Nishizawa, Optical Fiber Technology 18:394‑402 (2012).

Plastics + chemometrics: Watari et al., "On-line monitoring of the density of linear low-density polyethylene in a real plant by near-infrared spectroscopy and chemometrics," Applied Spectroscopy 58(2):248‑255 (2004).

Food NIR: Segtnan (2006); Shiroma & Rodriguez‑Saona, J. Food Compos. Anal. 22(6):596‑605 (2009); Pedreschi et al., Food Chemistry 121(2):616‑620 (2010) (on-line monitoring); Kays et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 44(8):2266‑2271 (1996); Williams, "Near-Infrared Spectroscopy of Cereals" (2006); Ng et al. (2007); Ni, Mei & Kokot, "…NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics… The potato crisps example," Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 105(2):147‑156 (2011).

Tissue — collagen/lipids: Riggs & Wong, "Human colon adenocarcinoma cell lines display infrared spectroscopic features," Cancer Research 84‑88 (1992); Camacho et al., "FTIR microscopic imaging of collagen and proteoglycan in bovine cartilage," Biopolymers 62:1‑8 (2001); and the NIR glucose/tissue set (Hazen 1998; Malin, Clin. Chem. 45(9):1651‑1658 (1999); Troy & Thennadil, J. Biomed. Opt. 6(2):167‑176 (2001) — skin optical properties 1000–2200 nm; Marbach 1993; Blank 2002; Olesberg 2005/2006). Needle delivery: Li et al., "Imaging needle for optical coherence tomography," Optics Letters 25(20):1520‑1522 (2000).

4. Ground I — Claims 1–6 (plastics / food industry goods)

Combination A: Watari (2004) + Kumar & Islam (2012) + Alexander (2012)/Islam SC-source patents; optionally Segtnan (2006), Shiroma (2009), Pedreschi (2010), Ni/Kokot (2011).

Motivation. (1) Watari supplies the problem — on-line, non-destructive determination of a plastics product — and the solution modality (NIR + chemometrics), but uses conventional lamp illumination with its known SNR ceiling; (2) Kumar & Islam supplies the ready-for-improvement stand-off architecture with a fiber SC source; (3) the '722 specification admits the substitution rationale verbatim ("it may be difficult to achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio due to the low power levels… the lamp based sources tend to be energy inefficient"; "By use of an active illuminator… higher signal-to-noise ratios may be achieved"). That is a KSR (b)/(c) substitution rationale in the applicant's own words.

Dependent claims. 2 (stand-off + diffuse reflection) → Kumar & Islam and the hyperspectral remote-sensing literature; 3 (on-line process control) → Watari and Pedreschi ("on-line monitoring"); 4 (sugar content in solid food) → the food-constituent NIR art of record (Williams; Kays; Hartmann & Böning‑Pfaue 1998, "NIR determination of potato constituents"); 5 (non-destructive QC/constitutive analysis) → Watari, Shiroma, Kays; 6 (lock-in/change detection) → Kumar & Islam's own experimental set-up used a chopper and a lock-in amplifier at 400 Hz with a 100 ms time constant, which the '722 specification reproduces — i.e., the limitation is met by a reference already of record.

5. Ground II — Claims 7–15 (hydrocarbons / organic compounds)

Combination B: Kumar & Islam (2012) + Werle (2002) + Clark (2009) + Xu (2008)/Van der Meer (2002)/McCoy (2001) + Tolton (2004)/Nunnally (2003); with Ni/Kokot or Watari for the chemometrics limitation; Alexander (2012) for claim 8.

• Claim 7's added limitations — "output signal … based … on a chemical composition" and "spectral features of hydrocarbons or organic compounds" — are squarely supplied by Werle 2002 (laser-optical gas sensing by NIR/MIR absorption), Clark 2009 (the reflectance spectroscopy of alkanes — the source of the '722's own FIG. 3 and of its 1.7 µm triplet / 2.3 µm combination-band discussion), and Xu 2008 ("exploring for natural gas using reflectance spectra of surface soils"). Tolton 2004 / Nunnally 2003 add remote methane/CO₂ detection by gas-filter correlation radiometry — the very receiver the '722 discloses.
• Claim 9 (stand-off, diffuse reflection, source and receiver remote) → Kumar & Islam (2012) directly.
• Claim 13 (wavelength-tunable detection system) → Werle 2002 (tunable diode laser spectroscopy); Olesberg 2005 (tunable laser-diode system).
• Claims 11, 12, 14, 15 → as Ground I/A and the food references.

Motivation. The convergence is unusually clean: the patent's own Background concedes that (i) SWIR windows at ~1.4–1.8 and ~2–2.5 µm transmit; (ii) methane and ethane have overtone/combination bands there; (iii) solar illumination is unusable at night and in bad weather ("only between about 9 am to 3 pm"), and therefore "it would be advantageous to have a broadband light source covering the SWIR that may be used in place of the sun." Once the problem is framed that way — replace the sun with an active broadband illuminator — the SC art (Kumar & Islam; Alexander; Nishizawa) is the art of first resort, and the hydrocarbon-reflectance art (Clark, Xu, Van der Meer, McCoy, Khan, Kuhn) supplies the diagnostic bands and the algorithms. A POSITA would expect success because the interrogated physics (C–H overtone/combination absorption) is identical; only the illuminator's brightness and bandwidth change.

6. Ground III — Claims 16–20 (tissue including collagen and lipids)

Combination C: Malin (1999)/Hazen (1998)/Troy & Thennadil (2001)/Marbach (1993) + Riggs & Wong (1992) + Camacho (2001) + Alexander (2012) or Islam SC-source patents + (for claim 17) Kumar & Islam; (for claim 18) Li (2000).

• The NIR-tissue set establishes that collagen and lipid have distinctive NIR absorption/scattering signatures detectable through skin (Troy & Thennadil: optical properties of human skin 1000–2200 nm), and that NIR diffuse reflectance/transmission with multivariate calibration permits non-invasive analyte determination (Malin; Hazen).
• Riggs & Wong (1992) establishes IR spectroscopic discrimination of adenocarcinoma cell lines; Camacho (2001) establishes FTIR microscopic imaging of collagen. Together they render obvious "output signal … distinguishes between normal and cancerous tissue" (claim 19).
• Claim 18 ("deliver… through a needle") → Li et al. (2000), "Imaging needle for optical coherence tomography," which discloses exactly the fiber-in-needle delivery concept, in the same IDS.
• Motivation is again conceded in the specification: "with growing cancer the collagen content increases while the lipid content decreases… early breast cancer detection may involve the monitoring of absorption or scattering features from collagen and lipids," and "Higher optical power densities may be used to increase the signal-to-noise ratio…" The move to a brighter broadband source is a predictable substitution.

7. Consolidated KSR motivations (applies across all grounds)

1. Same field, same problem. Every reference is NIR/SWIR optical spectroscopy for material identification; no field-of-invention barrier exists.
2. Known elements combined by known methods → predictable result. Broadband source + delivery head + dispersive/imager + chemometric algorithm was the standard NIR toolbox.
3. Simple substitution. Lamp → SC/multiplexed-LD source to gain brightness, coherence, and fiber delivery. The art knew lamps were "energy inefficient" and SNR-poor; the art knew SC lasers "combine the broadband attributes of lamps with the spatial coherence and high brightness of lasers."
4. Known technique improving a similar device. Chemometrics/PLS, already used for plastics (Watari) and foods (Ni/Kokot), applied to hydrocarbon and tissue spectra in the same way.
5. Applicant's own admissions supply motive and, arguably, the entire rationale for three of the four Graham factors.

8. Applicant's likely rebuttals — and how they fare

9. Bottom line

• Claims 1–6 are prima facie obvious over Watari (2004) in view of Kumar & Islam (2012), with the food-NIR references for claims 3–5 and Kumar & Islam itself for claim 6.
• Claims 7–15 are prima facie obvious over Kumar & Islam (2012) in view of Werle (2002) and Clark (2009), further in view of Xu (2008)/Van der Meer (2002)/McCoy (2001) and Tolton (2004)/Nunnally (2003); claim 8 by Alexander (2012); claim 13 by Werle.
• Claims 16–20 are prima facie obvious over Malin (1999)/Troy & Thennadil (2001) in view of Riggs & Wong (1992) and Camacho (2001), further in view of Alexander (2012) and, for claim 18, Li (2000).
• The strongest single piece of evidence is not a reference at all but the '722 specification's own Background, which recites the problem (solar illumination limitations), the substitute (a broadband SWIR source "in place of the sun"), and the benefit ("higher signal-to-noise ratios") — i.e., motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and predictable result, all conceded.

Confidence: moderate-to-high that these combinations would support § 103 rejections at the claim-construction stage described in § 2; low on full-text-quoted evidentiary support, because I worked from titles/dates in the IDS rather than the reference bodies. Anyone relying on this for a filing should pull the full texts of Watari, Kumar & Islam, Werle, Clark, Xu, Tolton/Nunnally, Malin, Troy & Thennadil, and Riggs & Wong, and confirm the pre‑2012‑12‑31 publication dates, the common-ownership status of the Islam patents, and whether the 61/747,485 priority chain is intact for every claim.