US 9495788

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

Summary of US Patent 9,495,788 B2

Sourcing note: The following is drawn from the authoritative full text supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-26), which I cross-checked against Justia Patents, the USPTO publication US2014/0285482A1, and USPTO.report. I ran targeted searches for USPTO records and Federal Circuit 2026 dockets; see the litigation caveat at the end.

Bibliographic data

Important literal-reading note: The two Korean priority applications are different numbers filed on different dates (Mar 22, 2013 and May 21, 2013). The granted patent's CROSS-REFERENCE section cites both. The corresponding Korean family member is KR101626966B1.

Abstract (as granted)

An apparatus and method for developing contents which may direct motions of a robot according to time and synchronize motions of a robot with a media. The apparatus outputs an interface including an editing area and a motion event track, and includes a drawer configured to implement and provide a three-dimensional robot model in the editing area, and a motion editor which generates a robot motion event according to a motional manipulation with respect to the robot model of the editing area and provides the robot motion event on the motion event track according to time.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are four independent claims: 1, 17, 32, and 33 (33 claims total).

• Claim 1 — Apparatus (the flagship claim). A robot-content authoring apparatus with two parts: (a) a drawer that renders a 3D robot model in an editing area of a UI, and (b) a motion editor that creates a "robot motion event" when the user directly manipulates the on-screen robot model — importantly, claim 1 requires the motional manipulation be "input directly upon the robot model" — and places that event on a time-based "motion event track." The claim then adds three specific limitations: the editor computes a head motion angle from head manipulation, receives an actuation time from the user, and outputs a head motion event rod encoding both the angle and a length corresponding to that time; and the editor draws a reference line (robot location) plus a sight line (robot gaze), with the angle between them serving as the head motion angle.

• Claim 17 — Method. The method counterpart to claim 1: output an interface with an editing area and motion event track; render the 3D robot model; generate a robot motion event from a motional manipulation "input directly upon the robot model"; place the event on the track by time; and (in the "providing" step) calculate a head motion angle and receive an actuation time, produce a head motion event rod, and display a reference line and sight line whose included angle is the head motion angle. Notably, claim 17 uses the same "input directly upon the robot model" language as claim 1.

• Claim 32 — Apparatus (broader/variant). Nearly the same as claim 1, but the motion editor is merely configured to generate the event from "a motional manipulation with respect to the robot model" — it omits the "directly upon the robot model" limitation found in claim 1. This reads as a deliberate fallback/alternative scope within the same family.

• Claim 33 — Apparatus (movement/rotation variant). A "movement motion editing mode" apparatus: when that mode is active, the editing area switches to a top view and two indicators associated with movement editing are displayed directly on the robot model. The first indicator is a front/rear movement indicator and the second a rotation indicator. When the first is selected, the editor computes a moving distance from forward/rearward manipulation, receives a movement speed, and outputs a movement motion event rod encoding distance and a length for the movement time; the editor also displays a before-movement location line and an after-movement location line with the distance shown between them.

Notable dependent-claim coverage (for context)

Head-motion UI details — colored indicator at the neck-hinge, perspective view (claims 2–3); top-view movement editing with two indicators and front/rear vs. rotation roles (claims 4–5), moving-distance event rods (claim 6), before/after location lines (claim 7), rotation angle + rotation speed event rods and before/after sight lines (claims 8–9); front-view LED/lamp expression editing with lamp location, color, and time (claims 10–11); motion regenerator plus a synchronizer that links the virtual model to a tangible robot (claim 12); the content-editing mode where the editing area becomes an emulation area, a preview window is shown, the motion event track becomes a content event track, and a template manager + content developer place motion/media event rods with regeneration-length durations (claims 13–16); and the method-side equivalents plus claim 31 (select a robot model, generate motions, link media at time points, and load an executable file to a tangible robot).

Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

• No USPTO or Federal Circuit proceeding involving US 9,495,788 could be located. My searches returned no district-court complaint, no IPR/PGR, and no 2026 CAFC docket or opinion naming this patent. Google Patents shows only a single "Cited By" entry (US 2016/0184998 A1) and no "Cited By" litigation, and reports the patent as Active with an adjusted expiration of 2033-12-22.
• Uncertainty statement: I could not directly query the USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB APIs or the CAFC docket system; findings are based on web search and the patent text supplied. Absence of a hit is not affirmative proof that no litigation exists — only that none surfaced. If you need a definitive litigation clear, a direct PACER/PTAB (PTAIB) and CAFC docket query would be required.
• The CAFC results my query did surface (e.g., Spero v. Volkswagen, 2025-1028; MPH Technologies Oy v. Apple; WAPP Tech v. Apple) involve different patents and are unrelated to — and must not be attributed to — US 9,495,788.

Other points worth flagging

• The specification describes the disclosure as covering both a motion editing mode and a content editing mode, with the file processor producing motion files (.rmm extension) versus content files with a different extension.
• The specification also covers a robot-side runtime (display manager, audio outputter, robot manager abstract interface, content engine) and a motion debugger (file explorer, downloader, robot application interface controlling a robotics HAL in ~0.5-second frame units).
• I have not verified independent claim validity, ownership chain beyond the recorded assignment to KT Corporation, or any terminal-disclaimer/PTA effects on the 2033-12-22 adjusted expiration; those would require the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9495788 across patent litigation databases.

Summary of Findings

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,495,788 was identified. Based on searches of Google Patents (including its "Cited By" and family listings), CourtListener, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents–hosted materials, USPTO PTAB filings, and general web sources, I found no U.S. district court action, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 9,495,788 was asserted or challenged.

Patent identification (for the literal record):

• Patent: US 9,495,788 B2 — "Apparatus and method for developing robot contents"
• Application: US 14/039,942; filed 2013-09-27
• Priority: 2013-03-22 (KR 10-2013-0030897); also KR 10-2013-0057176 (2013-05-21)
• Assignee: KT Corp (KT Corporation)
• Inventors: Jong-Cheol Kim, Sung-Taek Jung, Mi-Jeong Hong
• Granted: 2016-11-15; adjusted expiration listed as 2033-12-22
• Publication: US 2014/0285482 A1

Candidate cases examined and ruled out (important to avoid mis-attribution):

Caveats on completeness (stated explicitly):

1. I did not obtain direct, live query results from the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or PACER; those platforms are typically behind search interfaces that my queries did not successfully render. Absence in my results is therefore strong but not conclusive evidence of no litigation.
2. Unified Patents' case list and RPX/Insight databases would be the best authoritative cross-checks, along with a direct PACER docket search for "9495788" as an asserted patent in patent-case dockets.
3. Given that KT Corp assigned patents to Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC for monetization (per reporting on the 5G campaign), it is possible that '788 is among assets pooled for licensing, but no source I found ties '788 to any Pegasus (or other) enforcement action. I am not asserting that it is.

Bottom line: On the available record, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 9,495,788. For a definitive negative, a direct PACER/Unified Patents/Docket Alarm docket search keyed specifically to "9,495,788" should be run by counsel with subscription access.

Proceedings overview

Zero. As of the most recent USPTO Open Data Portal ingest, there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,495,788 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM (CBM has in any event been unavailable for petitions filed after 2020-09-20). Count: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is the weak-side posture: unlike a patent that has run the PTAB gauntlet and been narrowed, 9,495,788 is completely untested — all 33 issued claims stand as written, and no petitioner has yet purchased the Board's claim construction for you. The upside for a defendant is that no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone, so the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art remains available, in the PTAB and in district court.

I searched for proceedings rather than relying on the ODP block alone (Google Patents family/Cited By data, PTAB public petition documents, PTAB hearing schedules, and general web coverage). Nothing surfaced. I could not reach a live PTAB E2E / Docket Navigator query in this session, so treat the zero as high-confidence-but-verify: confirm by running the patent number through PTAB E2E, the USPTO Patent Center, and CourtListener's docket search before you tell a client the field is clear.

No proceedings to itemize — but one false-positive trap to flag

Web searches keyed on "the '578 patent" produce a dense, active PTAB docket that has nothing to do with this patent. That docket — IPR2024-00249/IPR2024-00248 (Meta Platforms v. Mobile Data Technologies LLC), the ten Samsung petitions IPR2025-00535–IPR2025-00544, and the underlying EDTX/ND Cal. PAE litigation — concerns U.S. Patent 9,619,578 ("'578 patent," Mobile Data Technologies LLC, claiming priority in the Harper family via U.S. 8,135,801). That is a different patent, different owner, different technology (photo/application-based information channels on mobile devices), and the "578" shorthand is the only overlap. Do not let any of those institution decisions, claim constructions, or the 2025-03-07 pre-hearing settlement (JPML‑style rel. to Meta) bleed into a memo about 9,495,788. The 9,495,788 hits in that search corpus are inert citation entries.

Strategic summary

Claim status. No AIA trial has ever been instituted against 9,495,788, so no claim is canceled, confirmed, or amended by the Board. The patent issued 2016-11-15 with 33 claims and stands today with all 33. The independent claims are claim 1 (apparatus: 3D drawer + motion editor generating a motion event from manipulation of the model and placing a time-indexed event rod on a motion event track; head-motion-angle calculation from a reference line vs. a sight line), claim 17 (the method counterpart of claim 1, reciting processor-performed steps and the same reference/sight-line angle calculation), claim 32 (an apparatus claim that is a near-verbatim restatement of claim 1, minus the "input directly upon the robot model" phrase), and claim 33 (an apparatus claim aimed at the top-view movement-motion editing mode, the two front/rear-vs-rotation indicators, and the before/after movement distance line). Claims 2–16 depend from claim 1; 18–31 depend from claim 17. Note the unusual duplication between claims 1 and 32 — a defendant should verify the prosecution/issuance history (including whether a certificate of correction or reexamination certificate is on file) before treating the two as coextensive.

Tiering for a defense. Untested but structurally exposed: claim 1 / claim 32 (the broadest apparatus family — "motion event track," "motional manipulation," reference-line/sight-line angle) and claim 17 (method). Untested but narrower: claim 33 (tied to the top-view + dual-indicator + before/after-distance-line UX), claims 13–16 (content editing mode, emulation area, media templates), and claims 10–11 (LED/lamp expression mode). If you are looking for PTAB candidates, the content-editing and synchronized-media claims (13–16) map to a very crowded 2010–2012 prior-art space (animation/timeline authoring tools, Scratch/Alice-style visual programming, Lottie/Flash-style timeline editors with synchronized audio tracks), so a § 103 challenge grounded in timeline-authoring art plus a robot-kinematics reference is the natural shape of a petition.

Estoppel landscape. Because there are no AIA trials, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue: no petitioner or privy has been estopped as to any claim of 9,495,788, and no ground is "locked out." Conversely, if you file and lose, you will be the first to trigger estoppel — the usual asymmetry. There is also no § 325(d) problem and no General Plastic/follow-on Fintiv-style discretionary-denial problem: 9,495,788 has never been presented to the Board, which is the cleanest possible posture under the Director's current workload-management regime (see the 2025-03-26 Interim Processes memo and the October 2025 delegations/proposed rules that have driven institution rates from ~74% in FY2024 to roughly 40%, and lower still for first-decided petitions). One caution: the patent has been in force since 2016-11-15 (terminal expiration adjusted to 2033-12-22), so it is well past the six-year "settled expectations" line that the Director's discretionary-denial decisions have treated as weighing against institution.

Pattern signals. None available on this patent. No serial petitions (there are none), no PTAB appeals (there are none to appeal), and no visible defensive-aggregator activity. For context, Unified Patents does appear in the family-adjacent landscape via its ex parte reexamination practice, but that activity is on the Mobile Data Technologies '578 family, not here — do not attribute it to KT Corp. The patent's prosecution pedigree is Korean: KR10-2013-0030897 (filed 2013-03-22) and KR10-2013-0057176 (filed 2013-05-21), the latter maturing as KR101626966B1. Any validity work worth doing should pull the Korean prosecution file, because the KR family member's examination may contain prior-art citations (and admissions) that are not in the US file wrapper — and those are admissible as printed publications if they qualify.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and want an AIA trial: there is no FWD to point you to — none exists. Your leverage is the clean slate and the pre-2013 priority date. Because 9,495,788 has an effective filing date before 2013-03-16, PGR is unavailable, and because the claims issued 2016-11-15, there is no § 315(b) bar absent service of a complaint (and if you have been served, your one-year § 315(b) clock is running — docket that date immediately). File IPR under §§ 102/103 only, and expect the Director-level institution gate adopted in October 2025.
• Verify the negative before relying on it. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E, Patent Center, and CourtListener; the ODP ingest lags recent filings, and a petition filed in the last few months may not yet be indexed. Report back with a dated screenshot if you need the memo to be counsel-defensible.
• Do the parallel-litigation check that the PTAB block cannot see. The structured block tells you about AIA trials, not district court or ITC assertions. A patent issued in 2016 by a Korean carrier and never IPR'd is more likely to be a portfolio/defensive asset than a litigation weapon — but you should confirm against the EDTX, D. Del., C.D. Cal., and ITC § 337 dockets before advising that there is no assertion risk. If you find a live case, the absence of any IPR becomes a strategic opening rather than merely a curiosity.
• If you are being asserted against and want to stay out of the PTAB: the untested-broad-claim posture cuts the other way — claims 1/17/32/33 have never been construed by any tribunal, so an early Markman plus a § 101 or § 112(a)/(b) attack in district court is at least as attractive as an IPR, and it avoids creating § 315(e)(2) estoppel against your own invalidity theories.

Sources checked: US 9,495,788 B2 (Google Patents) — full text, claim set, family (KR1020130057176A → KR101626966B1), assignee, adjusted expiration 2033-12-22; Justia claim listing for US 9,495,788; ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block (zero AIA trials); PTAB public petition/hearing documents (hits were exclusively for U.S. 9,619,578 and unrelated patents); USPTO PTAB Trial Statistics and the 2025 discretionary-denial memoranda for institution-rate context. No PTAB E2E or Docket Navigator live query was completed in this session — that gap is the one thing to close.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent.

Let me dig deeper on the assignment record and any KT patent monetization activity.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,495,788 B2 ("Apparatus and method for developing robot contents")

Sourcing note / important limitation. I was not able to query the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) directly — the interface did not render for my searches. The assignment data below is taken from the legal-events section of the authoritative Google Patents record supplied for this patent plus cross-checks against Justia, FreePatentsOnline, and uspto.report. Reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record were not retrievable in this pass and are marked as such. I have not invented them. For a file-wrapper-grade confirmation, a direct Assignment Center search by patent number (14/039,942) or by "9,495,788" must be run.

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns: No departure signal is detectable. The single recorded assignment runs inventors → KT Corp and was recorded ~2.5 months after the 2013-09-27 US filing (a routine confirmatory employee assignment, not a divestiture). Google Patents shows no later transfer from any inventor to a third party. I could not verify the inventors' specific internal KT divisions, nor whether any of them left KT within 12 months of filing — that data point is unavailable, not negative.

---

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: KT Corporation (assignee of record; "KT Corp"), a Korean telecommunications operator headquartered in Seoul / Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do.
• Assignment recorded: 2013-12-09 (see timeline).
• Primary line of business: Operating telecom carrier — wireline/wireless, broadband, IPTV, enterprise ICT and AI/robot services. Publicly traded (KRX: 030200); operating, not acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy.
• Product embodying the claims: The specification describes a 3D robot-content authoring tool with a virtual robot model synchronized to a "tangible robot," plus a robot-side runtime and a motion debugger (FIGS. 12–13). KT ran an educational/intelligent-service-robot program in that era, and the patent reads as tooling for it. However, I could not confirm in this pass that a commercial KT product embodying the claims shipped. State this as unverified rather than asserting it.
• Monetization posture (context, not a finding for this patent): KT is an established seller of patent assets. IAM reported (2019-10-04) that KT had "started selling patents to other operating companies in the last two years, after previous deals focused on the NPE sector." In 2022 KT granted Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC an exclusive license/assignment over ~80 patent families (Sept 7, 2022 agreement, amended Nov 4 / Dec 8 / Dec 23, 2022) under a parallel "Agency Agreement for Patent Monetization" (Sept 30, 2022), which Pegasus asserted against Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T starting 2023-12-29. Those assets are KT's LTE/5G patents — no source ties US 9,495,788 to that transaction.

---

Assignment timeline

Verifiable chain for this patent (one post-filing assignment):

• Executed date: not shown on the record; recorded 2013-12-09 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN — not retrieved (Assignment Center not queryable in this pass; no reel/frame appears in the Google Patents legal-events text)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (recorded text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignors: KIM, JONG-CHEOL; HONG, MI-JEONG; JUNG, SUNG-TAEK (all three individual inventors)
  • Assignee: KT CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Cannot flag recurrence — the correspondent of record is precisely the datapoint requested, and it was not obtainable from the sources I could reach. Do not treat this as "none."
  • Context: Confirmatory employee invention assignment — inventors → employer, recorded after the 2013-09-27 US filing; not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Other legal events on the record (not assignments):

• 2013-09-27 — Application filed by KT Corp.
• 2014-09-25 — Publication of US 2014/0285482 A1.
• 2016-11-15 — Patent granted; published as US 9,495,788 B2.
• Status: Active, adjusted expiration 2033-12-22 per Google Patents.

Plain statement: The Assignment Center records I could reach show only the original inventor→KT assignment. There is no recorded post-issuance assignment for US 9,495,788 — which normally means the original assignee (KT Corporation) still owns it. The 2022 Pegasus transaction is not evidenced for this patent and must not be attributed to it.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9495788
    2013 : KR priority apps filed by KT inventors
         : US app filed by KT Corp
         : Inventors assign rights to KT Corp
    2016 : Patent issued to KT Corp
         : No later assignment recorded

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment from KT to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity is recorded for this patent. The only assignee of record is KT CORPORATION (an operating telecom), per the 2013-12-09 record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present for this patent. No Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Pendrell, Vringo, etc. appears anywhere in the '788 chain. Adjacent but distinct: KT's 2022 exclusive-license/assignment to Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC (an NPE formed in Virginia, Aug 2022; CEO Yeasun "Eric" Yoon of Capitol IP Law Group) placed 4G/5G patents with a known asserter. No evidence connects '788 to Pegasus. Flagging the KT→NPE habit as portfolio-level risk only.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. With a single recorded link, there is no chain in which to detect recurrence, and the correspondent of record was not retrievable. A single appearance would not be a finding anyway; the signal requires recurrence across multiple links or a correspondent whose name appears on an NPE assertion list. Cannot be assessed.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. No consecutive assignments through chained LLCs; only one assignment in 13 years of the patent's life.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No litigation naming US 9,495,788 was identified (consistent with the earlier litigation section of this analysis), so there is no trigger event to which a transfer could be tied.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. KT Corporation is a solvent, publicly listed telecom; no Chapter 7/11 proceedings and no patent sale in bankruptcy identified.

7. Privateering — unclear; not evidenced for this patent. KT's Pegasus arrangement is a textbook privateering structure on its telecom portfolio, and IAM (2019) confirms KT historically sold into the NPE sector. But there is no recorded transfer of '788 and no assertion involving it, so privateering of this patent is speculation, not a finding.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN assignment recorded; the chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The sole recorded conveyance is the 2013-12-09 assignment from inventors Kim, Jung and Hong to KT CORPORATION — a solvent operating telecom — and no post-issuance assignment is on record, so on the available evidence the patent is still held by its original operating-company assignee (reel/frame not retrievable, which is the main gap). There are zero NPE-pattern signals present, but the requested evidentiary hooks (reel/frame, correspondent of record, and confirmation that no later assignment exists) could not be pulled from the sources available to me, so the honest verdict is insufficient data rather than a clean "not an NPE" clearance. Portfolio-level caution, not a finding about '788: KT has demonstrably routed patent families to an NPE (Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC, 2022), so a docket re-check on '788 is worthwhile if the chain matters to a transaction.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by application 14/039,942 or patent 9,495,788); legacy interface https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

I'll run targeted searches to pull the USPTO record and the cited prior art for US 9,495,788.

The search results didn't surface the (56) "References Cited" section. Let me pull it directly from the sources that reproduce the front page.

The Justia page surfaced the front-page reference list. Let me verify the list and pull details on the individual references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,495,788 B2 ("Apparatus and method for developing robot contents")

0. Sourcing and verification status (read first)

Literal patent identification (unchanged, confirmed): US 9,495,788 B2; application US 14/039,942; filed 2013‑09‑27; granted 2016‑11‑15; assignee KT Corporation; inventors Jong‑Cheol Kim, Sung‑Taek Jung, Mi‑Jeong Hong; pre‑grant publication US 2014/0285482 A1. Asserted patent number 9,495,788 only — no similar numbers substituted.

Important sourcing caveat up front: The authoritative Google Patents full text supplied for this analysis does not reproduce the front page (56) "References Cited" block. I therefore sourced the citation list from Justia's patent record (https://patents.justia.com/patent/9495788), which reproduces the issued front page — specifically the "Referenced Cited" section listing 16 U.S. patents, 4 foreign documents, and 2 non‑patent literature items, plus the examiner identification (Primary Examiner Phu K Nguyen).

Verification limits I hit: I ran live searches against Google Patents, Justia, and general web sources. I was able to independently confirm only the Conway reference (US 5,046,022) before hitting the tool‑call limit. The remaining 15 U.S. references, the foreign documents, and the two NPL items are reproduced from the Justia front‑page list and are NOT independently re‑verified in this session. Where I give a title or assignee for those, it is flagged. Treat any unflagged description as needing confirmation against the document itself.

Also note: I could not access the actual USPTO PTO‑892 / applicant IDS from PatentCenter, so I cannot distinguish examiner‑cited art from applicant‑cited art within this list. Justia merges both.

---

1. The AIA framework that controls this analysis

This is a threshold point the mapping depends on, and it is worth stating precisely:

• The earliest effective filing date is 2013‑03‑22 (KR 10‑2013‑0030897), with a second priority KR 10‑2013‑0057176 (2013‑05‑21), and the U.S. filing on 2013‑09‑27.
• All of those dates fall after 2013‑03‑16, the AIA first‑to‑file effective date. Accordingly, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) governs — not pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e).
• Consequence: a cited U.S. patent that issued after 2013‑03‑22 cannot be § 102(a)(1) art on its issue date; it is relevant only under § 102(a)(2) if its own effective filing date predates 2013‑03‑22 (which is why the examiner cited several post‑2013 issuances).
• Foreign patent documents can only qualify under § 102(a)(1) (patented/published/otherwise available before 2013‑03‑22).

This matters because 9 of the 16 cited U.S. patents issued in 2013‑2015, i.e., after the '788 effective filing date.

---

2. Front-page (56) references as they appear on the '788 record

2.1 U.S. Patent Documents

2.2 Foreign Patent Documents

2.3 Non‑Patent Literature

Forward citation (not prior art): Google Patents shows a single "Cited By" entry, US 2016/0184998 A1 (published 2016‑06‑30). This postdates the '788 grant and is not § 102 art for '788.

---

3. Reference-by-reference § 102 mapping to the '788 claims

Because I could verify only Conway's disclosure in this session, the mapping below pairs (a) confirmed disclosure for Conway, (b) technology-class reasoning for the unverified references, and (c) the specific claims implicated. None of these is, on the record I could verify, a clean anticipatory reference to independent claims 1, 17, 32, or 33.

US 5,046,022 — Conway et al. (1991‑09‑03). Confirmed subject matter: teleoperation architecture with "forward simulation means for providing a visual presentation of at least a portion of the planned path not yet executed," a visual display, and a "two‑way communications link between the location of the manipulator and the location of the human being." Mapping:

• Claim 12 — the "motion regenerator … operate the robot model … according to an event" + "synchronizer … communicate with a tangible robot and synchronize" combination is closely conceptually related to Conway's simulated forward path coupled by a two‑way link to a real manipulator. Strongest mapping on this record.
• Claims 1 / 17 / 32 — weak. Conway does not disclose a 3D robot model rendered in an editing area, manipulation directly upon the model, or an event rod on a time‑based motion event track. Cannot anticipate; at most § 103 background.
• Claim 33 — no top‑view dual‑indicator movement editing. Not anticipatory.

US 6,718,231 — Konno et al. (2004‑04‑06) (title unverified). Tentatively: robot control/programming art. If it discloses on‑screen robot manipulation and trajectory recording, it is directed at claims 1/17/32 (model manipulation → recorded motion) and possibly claim 33 (movement commands). Not anticipatory for the event‑rod/track limitations.

US 7,753,145 — Hillis (2010‑07‑13) (title unverified). Tentatively robotics/telepresence‑adjacent; relevant to claim 12 (synchronization between virtual and physical robot) if confirmed.

US 7,930,643 — Chandhoke et al. (2011‑04‑19) (title unverified) and US 8,640,027 — Chandhoke et al. (2014‑01‑28) (title unverified; § 102(a)(2) only). Paired inventor overlap suggests a simulator/authoring family. If one discloses a 3D robot model in an editing workspace with time‑sequenced motion data, it bears on claims 1, 17, 32 and the dependent head/neck‑hinge UI claims (2‑3).

US 8,272,466 — Moriguchi (2012‑09‑25) (title unverified). Tentatively robot simulator. Simulators of this class are the most likely § 102(a)(1) candidates for the "three‑dimensional robot model in an editing area" element common to claims 1, 17, 32, 33, and for claim 15's per‑mode camera views (perspective/top/front). Needs confirmation.

US 8,332,067 — Ditscher (2012‑12‑11) (title unverified). Tentatively industrial‑robot programming/teaching. Maps to claim 1/17/32 on the "generate a robot motion event" step and to claim 12 (virtual model ↔ real robot transfer) if it discloses a simulated robot driving a physical one.

US 8,353,767 — Borst (2013‑01‑15) (title unverified). Pre‑EFD issuance, so § 102(a)(1) is available. Robotics modeling/simulation class; candidate against claims 1/17/32 if it discloses interactive 3D robot posing.

US 8,442,428 — Maisonnier et al. (2013‑05‑21), US 8,452,447 — Nixon (2013‑05‑28), US 8,560,118 — Greer et al. (2013‑10‑15), US 8,666,544 — Moll et al. (2014‑03‑04), US 9,131,986 — Greer (2015‑09‑15). These issue after the EFD and are usable only under § 102(a)(2) (i.e., only if effectively filed before 2013‑03‑22). Greer/Moll‑type disclosures (robotic/medical‑robotic control and simulation) are directed mainly at claim 12 (virtual/depicted robot synchronized to a tangible robot).

US 9,002,520 — Hong (2015‑04‑07) (title unverified). § 102(a)(2) only. A Korean‑origin robotics filing in the same era as the '788 disclosure; worth a specific check for claims 1/17/32 and the claim 12 synchronizer.

US 9,067,315 — Kawamoto (2015‑06‑30) (title unverified). § 102(a)(2) only. Tentatively robot simulator/system; candidate against the 3D model in editing area element of claims 1/17/32/33.

US 9,080,886 — Lacaze (2015‑07‑14) (title unverified). § 102(a)(2) only. Likely autonomous‑vehicle/robot simulation (Honeywell‑type); relevant to the movement/rotation limits of claim 33 if it discloses top‑down path planning with directional handles.

Foreign documents. JP 2008‑254074 and the three KR publications (10‑2002‑0056949; 10‑2005‑0031525; 10‑0738258) are § 102(a)(1) art by publication date alone. They are the most likely home of a "robot motion editing by direct manipulation of a displayed model" teaching that would bear on claims 1 and 17, precisely because the '788 disclosure originated in the same Korean robotics/content ecosystem (KT). These require direct retrieval in Korean/Japanese to characterize — I did not do so here.

---

4. Which references are most relevant on this record

Ranked by probative value against the '788 independent claims:

1. Faust et al., IROS 2006 — "A Video Game‑Based Mobile Robot Simulation Environment." Best candidate on the record. A video‑game‑style 3D mobile‑robot simulation environment maps most directly onto the '788 core: a 3D robot model in an interactive editing/simulation area, movement editing, and transfer/synchronization to a real mobile robot. It is § 102(a)(1) art. I could not open the paper's text in this session, so I am not asserting it discloses the motion event track / event rod limitations — those appear to be '788's distinguishing feature.
2. US 5,046,022 (Conway) — verified. Strongest confirmed mapping, but to claim 12 (virtual forward simulation + two‑way link to the physical manipulator), and only as background to claims 1/17.
3. US 8,272,466 (Moriguchi) / US 8,332,067 (Ditscher) / US 7,930,643 & US 8,640,027 (Chandhoke) — the simulator/programming cluster; the best § 102(a)(1) candidates for the "3D robot model in an editing area" element.
4. Chen et al., ICDMA June 2013 — technically on point for a distributed robot simulation system, but post‑dates the EFD, so it is presumptively not § 102 art. Flag this if it appears in any invalidity contention.
5. KR 10‑0738258 / KR 10‑2005‑0031525 / JP 2008‑254074 — highest probability of containing a pre‑2013 Korean/Japanese robot motion authoring UI teaching; unverified here.

Bottom line on anticipation: Nothing in the verified portion of this record discloses the combination that distinguishes claim 1 — manipulation directly upon a 3D robot model producing an event rod on a time‑based motion event track, with the sight‑line/reference‑line head‑angle calculation. The cited art is a simulator/programming/teleoperation cluster; the § 102 exposure is therefore concentrated in (a) the broad "3D model in an editing area" concept and (b) the claim 12 synchronizer concept, not in the track/rod claims.

---

5. Two additional flags

5.1 A possibly missing, highly relevant citation. My searches surfaced KR 10‑2007‑0004268 A, titled "Robot contents authoring method using script generator and commercially‑off‑the‑shelf multimedia authoring tool for control of various robot platforms," appearing in the same Google Patents citation graph as US 9,495,788 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20070004268A/en). The title is squarely on point for '788. Caveat: if that KR publication actually published in 2007 it cannot cite a 2016 U.S. patent, so Google's graph may be conflating the KR family member KR 101626966 B1 with the U.S. patent. Either way, this document is pre‑2013 and is a strong § 102(a)(1) candidate that does not appear on the U.S. '788 front page. It deserves a direct retrieval. I am flagging it as a lead, not asserting a disclosure.

5.2 Contradiction with the earlier-generated section — flagged as required. The previously generated "Patent summary" states the '788 analysis should be read against "the cited Google Patents page … no 'References Cited' content." That is consistent with what I found: the supplied Google Patents text contains no (56) block, and the citation list here is derived from Justia, not from the supplied authoritative text. This is a sourcing difference, not a substantive contradiction, but the distinction matters if any of these references is later relied upon.

---

6. What I could not do (explicit uncertainties)

• I did not retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper, the PTO‑892/IDS, or the PTA/terminal‑disclaimer record; examiner‑cited vs. applicant‑cited is therefore unknown.
• I could not verify titles, assignees, or disclosures for 15 of the 16 U.S. references, the 4 foreign documents, or the 2 NPL items within this session's search budget; the technology‑class mappings in § 3 for those are provisional.
• I made no assertion that any listed reference actually anticipates any claim. "Potentially anticipates" is stated only where a specific element match is identified; elsewhere the reference is characterized as § 103‑type background.
• Final claim charts should be built from the actual documents, with each U.S. patent's effective filing date confirmed before invoking § 102(a)(2) for the nine post‑EFD issuances.

I'll research prior art references that could bear on obviousness, since the supplied page lacks a substantive "Prior Art" listing beyond a truncated "Cited By" entry.

I have strong leads. Let me verify key prior-art identifiers and dates so the analysis is properly grounded.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,495,788 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Preliminary caveats and sourcing

A note on the "Prior Art section of this page." The supplied Google Patents record for US 9,495,788 does not contain a substantive prior-art listing. What the fetched page shows is:

• a "Prior art keywords" field containing only the terms robot, motion, event, editing, developing — these are search/index terms, not references;
• a "Cited By (1)" table with a single entry beginning "US20160184998A1 … 2014-12-25 … 2016-06-30 … Fa…" (truncated). Note that this reference has a priority date of 2014-12-25, which post-dates the '788 filing (2013-09-27); it is therefore a forward citation and not available as prior art. It cannot support a § 103 rejection.
• no "References Cited" / "Cited By Examiner" list, and no NPL citations rendered in the fetched text.

Because the page supplies no usable prior-art references, I located and verified the references below by searching the Google Patents family/NPL citation graph and the published texts of the candidate references. Every reference relied on below is identified by its own publication number and date, and I flag which ones I could not fully verify.

Prosecution-history caveat: I could not access the file wrapper (PatentCenter) for 14/039,942. Statements about why a limitation appears in a claim are inferences from the claim text alone, and are labelled as such.

---

1. Analytical framework

1.1 Effective filing date / critical date

The earliest priority date is 2013-03-22. For subject matter that first appears only in the second Korean application (the specification's content editing mode, FIG. 10–11, is the plausible candidate), the effective date may be 2013-05-21. To be conservative, I have treated 2013-03-22 as the critical date for all limitations. Every reference below was publicly available well before 2013-03-22; most are from 2000–2011. Nothing in this analysis turns on which priority date applies.

1.2 Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

The claimed subject matter sits at the intersection of three well-developed 2000s-vintage arts:

1. 3D computer animation/authoring tooling (timeline + keyframe + channel + layers; e.g., Maya, 3ds Max, Flash/Director — all long predating 2013);
2. robotics authoring/simulation (offline programming, teaching pendants, virtual-robot editors);
3. humanoid/consumer-robot behavior authoring (Sony AIBO/QRIO motion editors; Aldebaran NAO/Choregraphe).

A PHOSITA here would be a software engineer or robotics engineer with a bachelor's degree in CS/EE (or equivalent) and 2–3 years of experience building graphical authoring tools or robot programming environments, familiar with (a) 3D scene-graph UI paradigms including translate/rotate manipulators ("gizmos"), (b) timeline/keyframe data models, and (c) robot motion primitives (head yaw/pitch, differential-drive translation and rotation, LED I/O). This is a routine-engineering, high-synergy field: the problem the '788 patent addresses — "let a non-programmer author robot behaviour on a timeline and sync it to media" — was the explicit, publicly stated goal of several of the references below.

1.3 The invention as a whole (per the earlier summary)

The patent's contribution is an authoring UI: a 3D robot model in an editing area that the user manipulates directly, with the resulting motion written as event "rods" (duration-proportional blocks) onto a time-based multi-channel event track, plus a second "content editing" mode in which motion events and media are assembled on a content event track and previewed. It is, functionally, a NLE (non-linear editor) for robot motion.

---

2. Prior art references identified

General-knowledge art (asserted as PHOSITA background, not as a retrieved document — flagged as such): 3D content-creation tools (Maya, 3ds Max, Blender, Flash/Animate) have for decades provided (i) an orthographic view switcher (front/top/perspective) tied to the editing task, (ii) translate and rotate manipulators ("gizmos") attached to the selected object, and (iii) angle readouts / construction lines while dragging a rotation handle. I am relying on general knowledge for these, and this reliance is identified where it is load-bearing.

---

3. Element-by-element mapping to the claims

3.1 Independent claim 1 (apparatus)

Conclusion on claim 1: obvious over P1 + P2, and independently over P3/P4 + P1, with P6 (or routine 3D-editor practice) supplying the reference-line/sight-line/angle readout.

3.2 Independent claims 32 and 33

• Claim 32 is claim 1 with the "input directly upon the robot model" language removed (motion editor generates the event from "a motional manipulation with respect to the robot model"). It is broader than claim 1 and therefore strictly more vulnerable: every combination that renders claim 1 obvious renders claim 32 obvious; and P1/P3/P5 render it obvious on their own, since a timeline-based robot authoring tool with per-joint motion channels covers it.
• Claim 33 (top view + two indicators directly on the model; first = front/rear translation, second = rotation; distance calculation + user-entered movement speed + duration-proportional rod; before/after location lines with distance displayed):
  • top view: P6 displays plan (top) and side views of the robot cell as the working views; orthographic view switching per editing task is standard (general knowledge; also P4's "Inspector"/3D-vs-timeline interplay).
  • two indicators on the model, one for translation and one for rotation: this is the canonical translate/rotate manipulator pair of 3D authoring tools (general knowledge), and P2's per-joint ring handle is a rotation manipulator anchored at the body part. Applying it to whole-body translation+rotation in a top view is a predictable substitution of a known manipulator for a known edit (planar driving motion of a wheeled robot).
  • moving distance from front/rear manipulation + user-supplied speed → duration rod: P1's motion channels and P4's duration bars supply the rod; deriving time = distance ÷ speed is arithmetic, not invention. (Note the specification itself says the movement speed is "a moving distance during 1 second" — the relationship is purely definitional.)
  • before/after location lines + distance line between them: conventional 3D-editor "ghost"/construction-line feedback while dragging (and P6's taught-point visualization is analogous).

Conclusion on claim 33: obvious over P2 + P6 + P1 (or P4 + P6).

3.3 Dependent-claim coverage

---

4. Motivation to combine (the § 103 "articulated reasoning")

The Federal Circuit/KSR inquiry asks whether a PHOSITA would have had a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. Here the record is unusually strong:

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 are all robot-motion authoring tools whose stated purpose is to let a user compose robot behaviour over time without writing a program. The '788 patent's own stated objective — "allow a user of a robot to develop contents for the robot without any programming work" — is verbatim the motivation already articulated by these references (e.g., P1's abstract; P4's "without compiling a single line of C++"). No field-crossing is required: every reference is from the same art, which the case law treats as the strongest form of motivation. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

2. The combination is explicitly taught, not merely suggested. P1 already contains, in a single reference: a horizontal time axis with vertical motion / sound / LED channels, a 3D preview window, and drag-and-drop of motion, sound and LED files onto that time axis. That is, at a functional level, the '788 content editing mode (claims 13–14, 29–30) presented a decade earlier. Combining P1's timeline-and-channels authoring surface with P2's direct 3D-viewer manipulation (claims 1, 32) requires only substituting one known input modality (channel/timing-chart editing) for another known input modality (direct handle manipulation on the 3D viewer) that operates on the same underlying data — a classic case of "a known technique improv[ing] a similar device in the same way." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

3. Design incentive / predictable results. Both P2 and P4 teach that direct manipulation of the rendered robot is more intuitive for novices than numeric entry — which is exactly the pedagogical use-case the '788 patent claims as its benefit ("an educator … may develop and utilize various educational contents"). A PHOSITA seeking to serve non-programmer educators would predictably adopt direct manipulation + timeline rods. There is no new technical effect (no unexpected result) recited in the claims: every claim limitation is a display/authoring feature, and the specification itself presents the invention as a usability improvement.

4. Arithmetic and I/O routinization. The "distance ÷ speed = duration → rod length" relationships (claims 6, 8, 22, 24, 33) and "colour as an LED parameter" (claims 11, 27) are, respectively, definitional arithmetic and routine parameterization of an already-known indicator channel (P1). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980) (routine optimization of known parameters).

5. No teaching away. No reference disparages timeline authoring, direct 3D manipulation, view switching, or virtual-to-real synchronisation. To the contrary, P3/P5/P4 each embrace virtual-model-plus-real-robot playback.

---

5. Where the patent has the strongest (though still thin) non-obviousness arguments

I want to be candid about the weakest part of the § 103 case, so the analysis is usable in both directions:

1. The "reference line according to a location of the robot model" + "sight line" + included-angle-as-head-motion-angle (claims 1, 2, 9, 17, 18, 25). No single retrieved reference shows a body-referenced baseline line and a gaze line whose included angle is computed and used as the head yaw value, nor the "toggle an indicator at the neck-hinge to reveal both lines" interaction. The counter is that (a) P6 computes a line-of-sight vector for teaching geometry, (b) P2's ring handles visibly encode the joint's rotational DOF, and (c) reading out an angle while dragging a rotation manipulator is elementary 3D-editor practice. A patentee would argue this is a specific graphical construct, not a mere automation of a known one; an examiner/petitioner would combine P2 + P6 and argue predictable design choice. My assessment: probably obvious, but this is the limitation on which an IPR would most likely turn.

2. "Input directly upon the robot model" (claims 1, 17, 33). Because this phrase appears in claims 1, 17 and 33 but not in claim 32 — which is otherwise near-identical to claim 1 — the claim set is drafted so that claim 32 preserves the broader "with respect to the robot model" scope. Inference (unverified without the file wrapper): the phrase was likely added/mirrored during prosecution against a prior-art reference teaching indirect manipulation (e.g., a property panel or a channel graph rather than the model itself). Even so, P2, P3 and P4 independently disclose acting on the model/limb itself, so the added language does not create distance from the art. If anything, the existence of broader claim 32 shows the drafter did not regard "directly upon" as the inventive core.

3. Claim 11's "colour" of the lamp is the only limitation I could not find squarely disclosed. It is narrow; claims 10 and 11 stand or fall on it individually.

---

6. Verdict summary

Bottom line: On the references identified, every independent claim (1, 17, 32, 33) is vulnerable to a § 103 attack, and the dependent claims add little. The single most defensible limitation is the reference-line/sight-line included-angle head-yaw construct (claims 1/9/17), and even that is a conventional 3D-editor angle readout combined with a FANUC-style line-of-sight vector. The most likely invalidity theory is a P1 (Sony timeline authoring with motion/sound/LED channels and 3D preview) + P2 (Sony direct 3D-viewer joint manipulation with ring handles) + P6 (FANUC line-of-sight/orthographic views) combination, optionally reinforced with Aldebaran's US 2012/0136481 / US 9,333,651 and the public Choregraphe documentation for the virtual-model-to-tangible-robot and media-linking aspects.

---

7. Explicit limitations of this analysis

1. No file wrapper. I could not query PatentCenter for 14/039,942, so I cannot state what the examiner cited or why "input directly upon the robot model" appears in the granted claims. Any prosecution-history inference above is labelled as such.
2. The supplied page had no prior-art section. References were located by external search of the family/citation graph; the examiner's own cited-art list (and any IDS references) may add or change the picture.
3. Reference-verification status: P1 (WO 02/26450 / US 6,718,231 / JP 4765155 B2 / KR 20020056949 A) — verified via the Google Patents family table. P2 (US 2005/0125099 A1; Sony) — verified via its published text; I did not confirm its exact Japanese family members, so the JP 4592276 B2 / JP 2007-015037 A citations are offered as related Sony motion-editor art, not as confirmed equivalents. P3 (US 2012/0136481 A1 / US 9,333,651 B2) — title, filing month (November 2011) and content verified from Justia'com and FPO; the exact filing day and the '651 priority chain were not independently confirmed. P5 (JP 2008-254074 A) — text retrieved, but the applicant was not verified. P6 (FANUC) — verified. The translate/rotate gizmo, view-switching and angle-readout practices rest on general knowledge, flagged as such.
4. No secondary-considerations evidence. My earlier search found no litigation, no IPR/PGR and no 2026 CAFC activity involving 9,495,788. Importantly, that absence is not evidence of non-obviousness (nor is the absence of litigation evidence of validity) — it simply means no objective indicia of non-obviousness (commercial success, copying, industry praise, long-felt need) are on the record. Any rebuttal on secondary considerations would require evidence I do not have.
5. Prior-art status of the "Cited By" entry. US 2016/0184998 A1 (priority 2014-12-25) cannot be used under § 102/§ 103 against this patent; it post-dates the critical date. Do not treat it as prior art.
6. Effective-date nuance. If the content-editing-mode subject matter (claims 13–14, 29–30, 31) is entitled only to the second Korean priority date (2013-05-21), the prior-art window for those claims shifts by two months. This changes nothing for the references above (all pre-date 2013 by 2–13 years), but it should be checked before relying on any reference dated between 2013-03-22 and 2013-05-21.