US 8775100

I'll search for litigation and docket information on this patent, then summarize the patent itself from the authoritative text provided.

Let me run a few more targeted searches.

Search Results: Litigation and Docket Check

I searched for US 8,775,100 in connection with USPTO records and 2026 CAFC dockets. Findings:

• No CAFC 2026 docket, district court case, or USPTO proceeding (IPR/PGR/reissue) referencing US 8,775,100 was found. My searches for the patent number against litigation/docket sources returned no matching case; the only 2026 Federal Circuit docket that surfaced was an unrelated matter (Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2026‑2012), which does not involve this patent. Treat the "no litigation found" conclusion as a negative search result, not proof of absence — I cannot exhaustively query every docket with the tools available.
• The Google Patents record does show a "Cited By" entry (US 20160372900A1 / US 10,763,650B2, Leoni Kabel Holding GmbH, "Cable, in particular induction cable…"), which is a citation, not litigation.

All bibliographic and technical content below comes from the authoritative full patent text supplied.

Summary of US 8,775,100 B2

Title: Cable for inspecting heat tubes and method of analyzing insertion force of cable

Patent number / kind code: US 8,775,100 B2 (application US 13/016,878; pre-grant publication US 2012/0053857 A1)

Assignee: Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Republic of Korea (original and current assignee)

Inventors (as listed): Yun Hang Choung; Dong Ok Kim; Jin Seok Park; Won Jae Lee; Hark Rho Kim; Hyun Kyu Jung; Yong Chil Seo

Filing date: January 28, 2011

Priority date: August 30, 2010 (Korean Application No. 10‑2010‑0083829)

Issue/grant date: July 8, 2014

Status (per record): Active; adjusted expiration listed as 2032‑07‑16. Maintenance fees paid through the 12th year (fee payment recorded 2025‑12‑22).

Family members: EP 2423583 B1, JP 5268167 B2, KR 101020944 B1 (also JP 2012047718 A, EP 2423583 A1).

Classifications: G01M 5/00 (structure elasticity/damage investigation); F16L 55/26, F16L 55/28 (pigs/moles in pipes); F22B 37/002, F22B 37/003 (nuclear steam generator inspection equipment); indexing G01N 2291/0258 (structural degradation).

Abstract (verbatim):

A heat tube inspection cable and a method of analyzing an insertion force of the cable are disclosed. The heat tube inspection cable includes a sensor unit configured to detect a defect in a heat tube, a plurality of segment units each configured to comprise a body part and a wheel part rotatably connected to the body part, a signal cable configured to helically pass through the body part of each of the plurality of segment units to transmit electric signal from the sensor unit, and a wire configured to pass through the body part of each of the plurality of segment units to keep the linear configuration of the plurality of segment units like a bead necklace and to provide axial and bending strength.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The patent has 16 claims, all of them apparatus claims directed to a "heat tube inspection cable." The three independent claims are 1, 13, and 15. (Worth flagging: although the title and specification describe "a method of analyzing an insertion force," no method claim appears in the granted claim set — the mathematical insertion-force analysis in the specification is not claimed.)

Claim 1 — Segmented wheeled inspection cable (broadest; two-wheel-recess embodiment)
A cable for inspecting a heat tube comprising:

1. a sensor unit that detects a defect in the heat tube;
2. multiple segment units, each having a body part and a wheel part rotatably connected to it, where each body part has (a) a cable insertion part formed helically on the outer circumference of the body part, and (b) a wire through hole formed through an inner part of the body part;
3. a signal cable inserted in those helical cable insertion parts, running helically through each segment's body to carry the electric signal from the sensor; and
4. a wire inserted in the wire through holes, passing through each segment's body to (i) hold the segments in a line like a bead necklace and (ii) provide axial and bending strength.

Plainly: a flexible "bead-necklace" probe cable made of many short cylindrical segments threaded on a central wire, each segment carrying small wheels to roll against the tube wall (reducing friction) and a helically wound signal cable to avoid tension/compression concentrating at one point.

Claim 13 — Segmented cable with part-protruding wheels and signal cables between the wheels
A cable comprising:

1. a sensor unit for detecting an inner circumference of a heat tube;
2. multiple segment units, each with a body part and a wheel part, where one side of the wheel protrudes out of the body and the other side extends to near the inner center of the body part (i.e., a large-radius wheel maximizing the rolling radius), each body part again having a helical cable insertion part on its outer circumference and a wire through hole through an inner part;
3. signal cables inserted in the cable insertion parts and running helically between the wheel parts of each segment, extending in the body's length direction; and
4. a wire through the wire through holes to keep the segments in a bead-necklace line and provide axial and bending strength.

Plainly: same rolling-segment concept, but emphasizing that the wheels are large enough to reach the center of each segment (maximizing wheel diameter to minimize friction) and that the signal cables are routed helically through the gaps between wheels.

Claim 15 — Segmented cable with a single through-going wheel and cable passing both sides
A cable comprising:

1. a sensor unit for detecting an inner circumference of a heat tube;
2. multiple segment units, each with a body part and a single wheel part passing through the body part (both ends of the wheel protruding out of the body), each body part having a helical cable insertion part on its outer circumference and a wire through hole through an inner part;
3. a signal cable inserted in the cable insertion parts, running helically at both sides of the single wheel part and extending in the body's length direction; and
4. a wire through the wire through holes to keep the segments in a bead-necklace line and provide axial and bending strength, wherein both ends of each wheel part protrude out of the body part.

Plainly: the Figure 8–10 alternative embodiment — instead of paired recessed wheels, each segment carries one axle-like wheel that passes entirely through the body with both ends sticking out, and the signal cable(s) spiral around either side of that wheel, with segments rotated (e.g., ~45°) relative to their neighbors so wheels do not line up.

Dependent claims (2–12, 14, 16) add: continuous/connecting helical cable paths between neighboring segments (2); body length adjusted to the tube's curvature radius (3); first and second wheels spaced apart and rotationally offset (4); wheels placed between neighboring cable insertion parts (5); wheels protruding outward while reaching toward the body center (6); signal cable disposed among wheel parts (7); wheels passing through the body with both ends protruding (8); a single center-disposed wheel (9); cable insertion part symmetric about the body centerline (10); wire symmetric about the centerline (11, and by extension the Figure 8 embodiment); and each segment rotated by a predetermined angle from its neighbor (12, 14, 16).

Notes and Uncertainties

• Two embodiment families. Claims 1–12 track the first embodiment (FIGS. 1–7: two rows of recessed wheels per segment, one central wire). Claims 13–16 track the second embodiment (FIGS. 8–10: one through-going wheel per segment, symmetric cable/wire routing). Claims 13–16 are not limited to the two-wheel configuration.
• Method not claimed. As noted, despite the title's reference to "method of analyzing insertion force," the granted claims are all apparatus claims. The insertion-force equation in the description is S_O(L) = (S_tip + BR)·e^(μL/R) − BR (Equation 15), where B is contact force, R the tube curvature radius, μ the friction coefficient, L the insertion length, and S_tip the minimum force to insert the sensor. If you need the exact as-granted claim text or a certified prosecution history, confirm against USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier rather than relying solely on the Google Patents rendering.
• Number interpretation. I have treated the identifier "8775100" literally as US 8,775,100 B2 and did not substitute any similar number; the searches above likewise matched only that number.
• Litigation/uncertainty. Based on available search results, I found no CAFC 2026 docket or other litigation involving US 8,775,100. I cannot rule out a docket that is not indexed by the search tools used; if litigation status is materially important, verify directly via PACER, CourtListener/RECAP, and the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board docket.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8775100 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned no relevant results. Let me search more specifically across litigation databases.

Let me check dedicated patent litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent 8,775,100

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent 8,775,100.

I searched litigation-oriented sources (including the Unified Patents portal indices, CAFC/PTAB-related materials, and general docket references) for the exact number 8775100 / 8,775,100. No district court case, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no ITC Section 337 investigation naming this patent surfaced. Rather than return results for similar but different numbers, I am reporting a null result.

What I did find (and why it is not litigation)

None of these constitute litigation; they are citation and family-reporting entries on the Google Patents page.

Suggested verification steps (since I could not complete live docket queries)

If you need certifiable confirmation, check these sources directly, as they are the authoritative dockets and my search budget was exhausted before I could query each:

1. PACER / CourtListener (RECAP) — search the patent number in the full-text docket search.
2. Unified Patents Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (filter by patent number).
3. Justia Patents / PlainSite — patent-level "litigation" tabs.
4. USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier — "Litigation Search" and post-grant proceedings tabs (to rule out IPR/PGR, which are administrative trials, not court litigation).
5. CAFC opinions search — confirm no appeal.

Important caveats

• I was unable to complete the full set of docket queries (search limit reached), so this is a "none found," not a definitive "none exists." Absence of evidence here is not proof of absence, because PACER-only filings, very recent suits (within days), and foreign proceedings may not be indexed by the sources reachable.
• IPR/PGR proceedings and ex parte reexaminations are not litigation in the strict sense; even those did not appear, but they would be reported separately if you want post-grant activity.
• The patent remains active with maintenance fees paid through the 12th year (Dec. 22, 2025), and has an adjusted expiration of 2032-07-16, so it is still live and asserting-eligible — the lack of litigation is a matter of record fact as of today, not of the patent having lapsed.

Conclusion: Based on the available information, no known litigation involves US Patent 8,775,100.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings on file" result against public sources before writing the analysis.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks against PTAB-specific sources.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US Patent 8,775,100 B2

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal, the canonical list — returns no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review for US 8,775,100, and my independent web searches surfaced no IPR/PGR/CBM petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. There is therefore no "claims invalidated vs. sustained vs. settled" breakdown to report: all 16 claims (1–16) remain UNTESTED in any AIA trial and are in force as issued.

Defensive posture: A defendant here faces a structurally unlitigated, un-challenged patent — but that is a weaker shield than it sounds. There is no PTAB record to cite, no FWD to point to, no IPR estoppel already banked, and no established claim-construction position from any panel. Conversely, the patent is also not "hardened" by surviving IPRs — it has simply never been tested. It remains live (maintenance fees paid through the 12th year on 2025-12-22; adjusted expiration 2032-07-16), so the full validity fight is still ahead of the first defendant who chooses to mount one.

Per-proceeding detail

None. No proceeding number, petitioner, panel, or disposition exists to report, and I will not invent one. Any entry below this header would be fabricated.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no AIA trial has ever reached an institution decision on this patent, the § 318 / § 328 claim-cancellation machinery has never been engaged. Consequently:

• CANCELED: none. No claim of US 8,775,100 has been canceled or held unpatentable by the PTAB.
• SUSTAINED: none — in the technically correct sense. No claim has been affirmed by a panel either. Nothing has been adjudicated. Dependent claims 2–12, 14, and 16 and independent claims 1, 13, and 15 all stand exactly as they issued on 2014-07-08.
• UNTESTED: all 16 claims.

If the patent owner's demand letter or complaint asserts the independent claims, note that the broadest claim (claim 1) carries a fairly specific structural combination — helically formed cable insertion part plus a wire through hole through an inner part of the body, plus a bead-necklace wire — which gives a challenger several concrete claim-limitation anchors. But absent an FWD, no petitioner has yet tested whether the prior art (e.g., US 5,174,164 / US 5,174,165 to Westinghouse, US 6,450,104, WO 02/06720, or US 2012/0006134) reads on that combination. That is an open question, not a resolved one.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) and § 325(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered — both provisions attach only after a final written decision. With zero proceedings and zero FWDs, no party is estopped from anything. For a defendant currently threatened or sued, this means:

• All § 102 and § 103 grounds remain available in district court and in a hypothetical IPR.
• No § 315(a)(1) bar (no prior declaratory-judgment challenge appears in the record).
• No § 315(b) one-year bar — that clock runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement, and no litigation involving this patent was found (consistent with the earlier litigation section of this analysis). A defendant served today would have a full year to petition.
• No § 325(d) reuse-of-art discretion — no art has been "previously presented" to the Office in a trial context.

Pattern signals. There are no patterns to detect. Specifically: no serial petitioner, no repeat-filer, no joinder activity, and no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — the patent's only visible third-party interest is a citation by Leoni Kabel Holding GmbH (US 10,763,650), which is a citation, not a challenge. The patent owner, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), is a Korean government research institute, not a patent-assertion entity; there is no history of NPE-style assertion that would normally invite IPR filings, which is the most likely explanation for the empty docket.

Procedural availability (practitioner note, statutory analysis — not a search result). Should a defendant want to file:

• IPR is the only viable vehicle. The application (US 13/016,878) was filed 2011-01-28, i.e., pre-AIA (before 2013-03-16). PGR is statutorily unavailable under § 321 because the patent does not issue from a first-inventor-to-file application.
• CBM is unavailable on two independent grounds: (i) the claims are directed to a mechanical inspection cable — a technological invention concerning a heat tube, not a "financial product or service" under AIA § 18(d); and (ii) CBM sunset on 2020-09-16, which has passed as of 2026-09-28.
• The patent expires 2032-07-16, so there is ample runway for an IPR to matter commercially.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing assertion, do not assume the patent has been tested. It has not. The absence of PTAB activity means there is no FWD to quote, no canceled claim to cite, and no institution decision to distinguish — a validity challenge must be built from scratch. Link to the USPTO PTAB E2E docket search (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) to confirm the null result yourself before relying on it in a brief.
2. Confirm the null result directly. My searches corroborate the ODP structured data, but the authoritative check is the PTAB E2E "Patent Number" search and the PTAB Decisions archive. If you need a § 315(b) date or a prior-proceeding confirmation, pull the USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier post-grant tab for US 13/016,878.
3. No trial-stage milestones exist. There is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no 1-year § 316(a)(11) FWD deadline running — PTAB timelines only start when a petition is filed and instituted. Any docket-monitoring calendar for this patent currently has nothing on it.
4. Watch the non-US families, which I did not search. The family includes EP 2423583 B1, JP 5268167 B2, and KR 101020944 B1. Because the EPO opposition window and Korean invalidity-trial (무효심판) routes are separate regimes not covered by the ODP data, the "no challenge" conclusion is a US-only conclusion. If your commercial exposure is in Korea or Europe, a separate national-proceeding search is warranted.
5. Treat this as a "none found," not a "none exists." My web searches and the ODP ingest both return empty, but the ODP index can lag recently filed petitions and PACER-only or foreign filings are outside its scope. The absence of PTAB activity is itself informative here (as the prompt notes, well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs), and the likely cause is that the patent has never been asserted against a commercially significant US target — not that the claims are especially robust.

Caveats and number interpretation

• I have treated the identifier "8775100" literally as US 8,775,100 B2 and did not substitute any similar number; searches for 8775100/8,775,100 returned only this patent.
• One search result surfaced a PTAB petition discussing a '518 patent (gas-main inspection, Kiefer art). That is a different patent and is not US 8,775,100 — I flag it so it is not mistaken for a proceeding on this patent.
• No proceeding numbers are invented in this report because none exist to report. Every claim about claim status is "unadjudicated," and I have not attributed any finding to a panel that never sat.

I'll research the assignment/ownership record for US 8,775,100 before writing up the sections.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8,775,100 B2

Source caveat up front: I could not complete a live query of the USPTO Assignment Center (search budget exhausted). The assignment data below is reconstructed from the Google Patents "Legal Events" panel for US 8,775,100 B2, which mirrors the Assignment Search record set (same reel/frame numbering, same conveyance language). One field the task asks for — the correspondent of record — is not exposed in the Google Patents legal-events rendering and I was unable to retrieve it from Assignment Center. I flag that as a data gap rather than guess a name. Anyone needing the correspondent should query https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 8775100 (legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Inventors

Seven named inventors, all listed as assignors to KAERI in the sole recorded assignment, which makes their employer at filing determinable as the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Daejeon, Republic of Korea:

Google Patents abbreviates the assignor list in the legal event as "CHOUNG, YUN HANG; KIM, DONG OK; PARK, JIN SEOK; AND OTHERS"; the full seven-name roster is confirmed by the "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" entry and by the inventor field of the patent face.

Unusual patterns check — none observed. The classic pre-fire-sale tell (all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing) is not evidenced here in any way I could verify; on the contrary, the patent stayed with KAERI and the same assignee has continued paying maintenance fees through 2025. I have no reliable, sourced data on where these individuals went afterward, so I make no departure claim either way. Individual residential addresses were not captured in the sources retrieved.

Original assignee

Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) — listed as both original and current assignee; the Google Patents record carries the standard disclaimer that listed assignees "may be inaccurate," but nothing in the record contradicts KAERI ownership.

• Entity type / line of business: Korean government-funded nuclear R&D institute (under the Ministry of Science and ICT), operating research reactors, the SMART integral reactor program, nuclear fuel cycle, radiation and decommissioning research. Not a commercial manufacturer of the patented article in the ordinary sense; it is a research institution whose output is licensed. It holds a large US portfolio (third-party trackers show ~200–300+ granted US patents).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear / likely no commercial product. The claimed article is an ECT/ultrasonic inspection cable for the once-through helical heat tubes of a small integral reactor (the SMART-type design the specification discusses). The patent's own Effect section claims "ready to commercial application" and applicability "to an existing ECT device," which is aspirational — I found no evidence of a KAERI-branded inspection cable on the market. This is a research-institute patent, not a product-line patent.
• Current status: Operating. No acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy of the assignee is evidenced anywhere in the record. KAERI remains publicly active (2026 press activity), and its stated technology-transfer practice is to license while retaining IP ownership — e.g., its own press material regarding the STELLA-II/TerraPower transaction explicitly states the agreement was a license providing rights of use, not a transfer of IP ownership (KAERI press release, 2026-05-19, https://www.kaeri.re.kr/hanaro/board/view?pageNum=2&rowCnt=10&menuId=MENU00326&linkId=12978). That is directly relevant here: an institute with a retain-ownership licensing model is a poor candidate for a portfolio fire-sale.

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment exists. Everything else on the record is fee/administrative events, not an assignment.

• 2011-01-03 (executed) / recorded 2011-01-28 — Reel 025717/0885
  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Choung, Yun Hang; Kim, Dong Ok; Park, Jin Seok; Lee, Won Jae; Kim, Hark Rho; Jung, Hyun Kyu; Seo, Yong Chil (as abbreviated by Google Patents: "CHOUNG, YUN HANG; KIM, DONG OK; PARK, JIN SEOK; AND OTHERS")
  • Assignee: Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Republic of Korea
  • Correspondent: Not available in the sources retrieved. Google Patents' legal-events panel does not reproduce the correspondent/attorney field, and I could not reach Assignment Center. I therefore cannot assess repeat-correspondent behavior for this chain (see Signal 3). The recording was made the same day the US application was filed (2011-01-28), consistent with a routine applicant-side recordation filed alongside the new application rather than a staged transfer.
  • Context: Original inventor → employer assignment for a research-institute filing; a routine title-clearing recordation, not an acquisition, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.
• Non-assignment legal events (for completeness, so they are not mistaken for transfers):
  • 2013-11-02 — "Fee payment procedure / PAYOR NUMBER ASSIGNED" (small-entity payor number assigned). This is an entity-status/fee event, not an assignment.
  • 2014-07-08 — Patent granted (PTAB/STCF "patented case").
  • 2017-12-22 — Maintenance fee, 4th year (small entity).
  • 2021-12-31 — Maintenance fee, 8th year (small entity).
  • 2025-12-22 — Maintenance fee, 12th year (small entity).
  • Adjusted expiration listed as 2032-07-16. Patent remains active and asserting-eligible.

Foreign family, for ownership cross-reference: EP 2 423 583 B1; JP 5268167 B2; KR 101020944 B1 (Korean priority KR 10-2010-0083829, filed 2010-08-30). No reassignment, opposition, or nullity proceeding involving these members surfaced in the sources I reached. The KR member is the priority application and was granted to KAERI on 2011-03-09.

No records found for any post-issuance assignment. Per the task's own rule, that is a finding: the original assignee still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8775100
    2010 : KR priority filed by KAERI inventors
    2011 : Inventors assign rights to KAERI
         : Reel 025717 frame 0885 recorded
         : US application filed 28 Jan
    2014 : Patent granted to KAERI
    2017 : Maintenance fee year 4 paid
    2021 : Maintenance fee year 8 paid
    2025 : Maintenance fee year 12 paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded conveyance is reel 025717/0885, and it runs inbound (seven individual inventors → KAERI). There is no operating→licensing-LLC transfer, no "IP/Holdings/Ventures" successor, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The sole assignee, KAERI, is a Korean government-funded research institute and does not appear on any NPE/asserter list I am aware of or that surfaced against the RPX/Unified-style directories I could reach. No second assignee exists to check against Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. With only one link in the chain, recurrence is logically impossible regardless of the name; and the correspondent field itself was not retrievable from the sources used (reel 025717/0885 carries no correspondent in the Google Patents rendering). I decline to name an attorney without the record. Verify at Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero transfers in the >14 years since recording; no LLC-to-LLC hops within 24 months, no shared correspondent addresses, because there are no subsequent assignments at all.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment within 6 months (or any period) before any suit, because no suit naming this patent was found (see the litigation section generated earlier — a null result, not proof of absence). With no transfer and no suit, this signal cannot be met.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 of KAERI, no distressed sale, no Kodak/Nortel-style auction. KAERI is a state-funded institute that is currently active; the patent's fees are being paid on time by the original owner.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE asserting on KAERI's behalf. KAERI's public posture is licensing-with-retained-title (see its 2026 press statement re STELLA-II/TerraPower), which is the opposite of handing patents to an assertion vehicle.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original research institute. The patent therefore has not been "neutralized" by a defensive aggregator; it is simply retained by a non-asserting government institute.

Verdict

Insufficient data — where "insufficient data" here means only the original assignment exists and the chain is a single inventor-to-institute recordation (reel 025717/0885, executed 2011-01-03, recorded 2011-01-28). There is no post-issuance assignment of any kind, the patent remains with the original assignee KAERI, and the record shows uninterrupted maintenance-fee payments through the 12th year (2025-12-22) with expiration out to 2032-07-16. No NPE/troll signal is present — not a single one of the eight indicators is met — but under the rubric this is a "no evidence either way of assertion" posture rather than a clean operating-company-assertion call, so "Insufficient data" is the honest label rather than "defensive/non-asserting" (the chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator) or "operating-company assertion" (KAERI is not suing anyone, and no product embodying the claims was confirmed in commerce).

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 8775100): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search (search patent 8775100): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal-events record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8775100/en

Uncertainties to close before relying on this: (a) the correspondent of record for reel 025717/0885; (b) confirmation via Assignment Center that no unindexed later recording exists; (c) whether KAERI has executed any non-recorded license (licenses are frequently not recorded, and a license would not change the ownership verdict). None of these would alter the ownership conclusion unless (b) surfaces a transfer.

I'll research the key cited references for US 8,775,100 to provide grounded analysis. Let me run targeted searches.

Prior Art Analysis — US 8,775,100 B2

Scope note: I searched for the identifier 8775100 literally and matched only US 8,775,100 B2 (application US 13/016,878; pre-grant pub. US 2012/0053857 A1). I did not substitute similar numbers. The full bibliographic and citation data below is taken from the authoritative full patent text you supplied (the "Patent Citations," "Citations," and "Non-Patent Citations" tables on the record), supplemented by live verification of several references. I was unable to run a direct USPTO PatentCenter citation query within the tool budget, so where I could not verify a reference's content by search, I say so explicitly and rely on the record's title/assignee.

Key legal framing (please read before the table):

• This is a pre-AIA application (priority 2010-08-30; filed 2011-01-28 — before the 2013-03-16 AIA changeover), so pre-AIA § 102(a), (b), and (e) apply.
• Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim, arranged as in the claim. As shown below, none of the cited references appears to anticipate claims 1, 13, or 15 outright — each is missing at least the "wheel part rotatably connected to the body part" and/or the "cable insertion part helically formed on an outer circumference" limitations. These are therefore best understood as § 103 obviousness references / background art, not § 102 anticipatory art. I flag the closest candidates and the specific claims they most affect.
• Recurring independent-claim elements (claim 1; mirrored with variations in claims 13 and 15): (1) sensor unit detecting a heat-tube defect; (2) plurality of segment units each with a body part and a wheel part rotatably connected to it; (3) cable insertion part helically formed on the outer circumference of each body part; (4) wire through hole through an inner part of each body part; (5) signal cable in the helical insertion parts; (6) wire through the wire holes holding the segments "like a bead necklace" and providing axial/bending strength.

A. The citation set (as listed on the record)

The front page carries two overlapping lists: a "Citations (10)" list and a fuller "Patent Citations (13)" list. Their union (13 references) plus 3 non-patent citations is what I analyze.

1. US 5,174,164 A — Westinghouse Electric Corp., "Flexible cable"

• Dates: filed 1991-09-16; published/granted 1992-12-29.
• Verified content (via US5174164 PDF/Google Patents/EveryPatent): a flexible cable for carrying an inspection probe (eddy-current/ultrasonic) through a nuclear steam-generator tube. It has a central core member with a plurality of adjacent interconnecting hollow "tulip-shaped" beads threaded along and surrounding the core; adjacent beads form ball-and-socket joints allowing flexure "without seizing or doubling-back." Beads are low-friction plastic; an electrical conductor runs along/around the core; bearing assemblies let the core rotate within each bead. Claim 13 recites a "layered steel" core member.
• § 102 assessment — closest § 102/§ 103 reference on the "bead necklace" limitation. This is the single most on-point reference for the cable architecture. It discloses the "plurality of [beads/segment bodies] threaded on a [steel] core like a necklace" and the wire providing axial/bending/anti-buckling strength concepts.
  • Potentially anticipates: nothing in the granted claim set strictly (it lacks a wheel part rotatably connected to the body part, and its conductor is coaxial, not a helical cable insertion part on an outer circumference). Under § 103 it is the primary reference against claim 1 and claim 15 (the "wire… like a bead necklace" element) and reinforces claim 8 (through-connections).
• URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5174164 ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5174164.html

2. US 5,174,165 A — Westinghouse Electric Corp., "Flexible delivery system for a rotatable probe"

• Dates: filed 1990-08-13 (continuation of Ser. No. 07/566,001, filed 1990-08-13); granted 1992-12-29.
• Verified content: a flexible, hose-like delivery system with a flexible inner shaft formed of short shaft segments, bearing assemblies with ball bearings (≥3, preferably 5) between the rotating inner shaft and a non-rotating flexible outer housing to minimize friction, and an electrical cable disposed within the inner shaft (coaxial cables) passing through a bore in each bearing assembly.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses friction-reducing rolling bearings along a segmented flexible shaft plus an internal signal conductor — conceptually near the "wheel part" + "signal cable" limitations, but the bearings reduce friction for shaft rotation, not rolling against the tube wall, and there is no helical outer cable insertion part.
  • Potentially anticipates: none strictly. § 103-relevant to claim 1 / 13 (wheel part, signal cable routing) and claim 12 (segments).
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5174165

3. JPH 05256984 A — Westinghouse Electric Corp. (""), "Flexible cable"

• Dates: priority 1991-09-16; published 1993-10-08.
• Description: On the record this is the Japanese family member of US 5,174,164 A (same priority date 1991-09-16, same title "Flexible cable," same assignee). Treat as duplicate art to item 1.
• § 102 assessment: Same as item 1 — closing/duplicative; no independent anticipatory effect.

4. US 6,450,104 B1 — North Carolina State University, "Modular observation crawler and sensing instrument and method for operating same"

• Dates: filed 2000-04-28; granted 2002-09-17.
• Verified content: a modular robotic crawler for an enclosed space (pipe) with articulated gripping and locomotive modules (segments) interconnected by flexible couplings (heavy-duty plastic tubing) enabling navigation of tight bends; radial displacement members ("pressure pads" / feet) that grip the pipe wall; a tether/umbilical carrying cables and air lines. (MOCASIn I/II crawlers.)
• § 102 assessment: Discloses multiple interconnected segments + flexible couplings + a bundled cable tether, but it is an inchworm crawler, not a passive inspection cable; no wheel-on-tube-wall, no helical cable insertion part.
  • Potentially anticipates: none strictly. § 103-relevant to claim 12 / 14 / 16 (segments connected/rotated) and generally to the "plurality of segment units" limitation.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6450104B1](/patent/US6450104B1)/en

5. WO 2002/006720 A1 — Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique (CEA), "Robot vehicle adapted to operate in pipelines and other narrow passages"

• Dates: priority FR 0009387, 2000-07-18; published 2002-01-24. (EP 1301740 B1 counterpart.)
• Verified content: a train of modules connected by flexible links (helical springs 38) so the train bends through pipe elbows but can be stiffened by stiffening cables 41 that pass through all modules and slide in sheaths; rollers/wheels 18 distributed at 120° around the circumference and sprung outward to press against the pipe wall; the stiffening cables are three, uniformly distributed for balanced force transmission.
• § 102 assessment — second-most on-point reference. It discloses (a) a train of modules, (b) wheels/rollers pressed against the pipe wall, (c) cables passing through every module, and (d) a uniformly distributed (symmetric) cable arrangement — mapping strikingly onto claim elements (2), (4)/(6), and dependent claims.
  • Potentially anticipates: none strictly (it is a crawling/machining robot, not a heat-tube defect-detection probe with a signal cable helically routed and no helical outer cable insertion part; no defect sensor unit). § 103-relevant to claim 1/13/15 (segments + wheels + through-wires), claim 6, claim 8, and claim 11 (wire symmetric about the centerline).
• URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002006720A1/en ; http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP1301740A1

6. WO 2002/070943 A2 — Carnegie Mellon University, "Gas main robotic inspection system"

• Dates: priority 2001-03-07; published 2002-09-12. (EP 1373783 / US 6,917,176 family.)
• Description: an in-pipe robotic inspection system (gas mains) with modular crawler segments and sensor payloads; related to the same design family as item 4.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses segmented in-pipe inspection with sensors, but no wheel-on-wall heat-tube cable, no helical outer cable channel.
  • Potentially anticipates: none strictly. § 103-relevant to the "plurality of segment units" and "sensor unit" limitations of claims 1 / 13 / 15.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1373783A2

7. JP 2002-318293 A — Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, "Inspection device for cooling pipe for blanket"

• Dates: filed 2001-04-24; published 2002-10-31.
• Description (from record; content not independently verified — search budget exhausted): an inspection device for a blanket cooling pipe (fusion-reactor context), i.e., an insertion-type inspection arrangement for a curved/slender cooling pipe. The record shows a machine English translation of this document was filed (Non-Patent Citation "D2-JPA2002-318293-english") and that it was the subject of a JP Office Action (Aug. 16, 2012) — meaning the JP examiner treated it as a substantive (likely closest) reference for the JP counterpart (JP 5268167 B2).
• § 102 assessment: On the record it is the reference the Japanese examiner pressed hardest on. If (as its title indicates) it discloses a sensor unit inserted into a curved thin pipe, it is a § 102/§ 103 candidate for the sensor-unit-in-curved-heat-tube aspect shared by claims 1, 13, 15, though it almost certainly lacks the wheel/helical-cable architecture.
  • Potentially anticipates: possibly the "sensor unit configured to detect a defect in a (curved) tube" element only — not a full claim.
• Caveat: I could not verify the substantive disclosure of this reference; the above is inference from title + examiner usage and should be confirmed against the machine translation on the record.

8. EP 0 104 492 A2 — Combustion Engineering, Inc., "Remotely operated maintenance and inspection equipment transporter"

• Dates: filed 1982-09-27; published 1984-04-04.
• Description: remote transporter that carries maintenance/inspection equipment (e.g., to a steam-generator tubesheet); manipulator/positioning hardware.
• § 102 assessment: Background art on remotely positioning inspection equipment; no wheeled segment cable, no helical cable channel.
  • Potentially anticipates: none. § 103/background relevance only.

9. US 4,515,747 A — Combustion Engineering, Inc., "Remotely operated maintenance and inspection equipment transporter"

• Dates: filed 1982-09-27; granted 1985-05-07.
• Description: US counterpart of item 8 (same title, same assignee/date family).
• § 102 assessment: Same as item 8 — background; duplicate of the EP disclosure.
  • Potentially anticipates: none.

10. US 3,930,487 A — Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, "Heat exchanger tube tool"

• Dates: priority 1972-12-22; granted 1976-01-06.
• Description: a tool for working inside heat-exchanger tubes (mechanical tube tooling, e.g., for tube cleaning/plugging-type operations).
• § 102 assessment: Very old, mechanical, and non-electrical — discloses a device inserted into a heat-exchanger tube, but no sensor, no wheels-on-cable, no helical conductor.
  • Potentially anticipates: none. § 103 background only.

11. FR 2,211,622 A1 — Siemens AG

• Dates: priority 1972-12-22; published 1974-07-19.
• Description: French family member associated with item 10 (same Siemens priority date). The record pairs FR 2211622A1 with US 3930487A.
• § 102 assessment: Duplicate/foreign counterpart of item 10. No anticipatory effect.
  • Potentially anticipates: none.

12. US 7,055,656 B2 — Delta Cycle Corporation, "Apparatus for restraining cable curvature"

• Dates: filed 2003-04-25; granted 2006-06-06.
• Description: a mechanism for limiting/restraining the curvature of a cable (preventing kinking) — not a tube-inspection device.
• § 102 assessment: Relevant only conceptually to the idea of controlling cable curvature — which maps loosely onto claim 3 ("a length of the body part … adjusted corresponding to a radius of curvature of the heat tube") and the specification's use of body-length vs. tube curvature radius.
  • Potentially anticipates: none strictly. § 103-relevant to claim 3 (curvature-matching concept).
• Caveat: content inferred from title/assignee; not independently verified.

13. US 2012/0006134 A1 — General Electric Company, "Low row steam generator inspection probe"

• Dates: filed 2010-07-12; published 2012-01-12.
• Description: a steam-generator inspection probe aimed at the "low row" (tight U-bend) region of the tube bundle — i.e., a probe capable of negotiating tight bends.
• § 102 assessment — timing is important. Its filing date (2010-07-12) precedes the '100 priority date (2010-08-30), so under pre-AIA § 102(e) it is potentially prior art as of its filing date despite publishing later. The examiner flagged it (asterisked as cited by examiner). It is relevant to the tight-bend/curved-tube insertion problem the '100 patent addresses.
  • Potentially anticipates: none strictly; § 103/(e) relevant to claims 1 / 13 / 15 (sensor unit for a curved steam-generator tube / probe able to traverse bends) and to the curvature-related dependent claim 3.
• Caveat: content inferred from title/assignee/date; I could not complete a content verification.

B. Non-Patent Citations (3)

1. European Search Report, App. No. EP 10 19 4471, Aug. 11, 2011 (KAERI) — the EPO search for the EP counterpart (EP 2423583).
2. JP Office Action (Japanese-OA-FPM-10-0176JP-OA), Aug. 16, 2012 — the JP prosecution action on JP 5268167 B2.
3. JP-2002-318293 English translation (machine) — the translation of item 7 filed during prosecution, confirming JP 2002-318293 was the substantive JP reference.

These are prosecution documents, not prior art per se, but they identify item 7 (JP 2002-318293) as the reference the JP examiner regarded as most material.

C. Synthesis — strongest to weakest, and the anticipation question

Bottom line on § 102: Based on the record and my verification, no cited reference anticipates any of claims 1, 13, or 15 as a single reference — each is missing the combination of (i) a wheel part rotatably connected to the body part and (ii) a cable insertion part helically formed on the outer circumference. The reference positions are therefore § 103 obviousness positions. The two genuinely load-bearing references a challenger or examiner would build on are US 5,174,164 (the "bead-necklace-on-a-wire" concept, matched in detail by claims 1/15) and WO 2002/006720 (modules + wall-contacting rollers + through-cables, matched by claims 6/8/11 and the "rotated neighboring segments" dependent claims), optionally combined with JP 2002-318293 or US 2012/0006134 for the curved-tube sensor aspect.

D. Explicit uncertainties and limitations

• Content verification: I verified the substance of US 5,174,164, US 5,174,165, US 6,450,104, and WO 2002/006720 by live search. I could not independently verify JP 2002-318293, EP 0 104 492 / US 4,515,747, US 3,930,487 / FR 2,211,622, JPH 05256984, US 7,055,656, or US 2012/0006134; for those I relied on the record's title/assignee/date and clearly flagged inference.
• "Potentially anticipates" is a screening label, not a legal conclusion. True anticipation demands element-by-element identity and is not established here for any claim.
• Claim construction caveat: claim 1's "signal cable … helically pass through the body part" and "cable insertion part helically formed on an outer circumference" are the limitations that most sharply distinguish this patent from the cited art; the prior art closest on the "bead necklace/wire" point (US 5,174,164) routes its conductor coaxially, not helically, which is the key gap.
• Number handling: every identifier above is reproduced literally from the authoritative text; I did not auto-correct any number.
• If you need a certified citation list or the examiner's actual rejections, confirm against USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier for US 13/016,878 and the JP/EP counterparts — I could not complete that live query within the available search budget.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis by pulling details on the most likely primary references from the patent's own prior-art lists.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,775,100 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the claim breakdown and litigation summary already produced. Governing law note up front: this application was filed 2011‑01‑28, i.e., before the AIA's 2013‑03‑16 effective date, so pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103(a) applies, and the critical reference date is the invention/priority date of 2010‑08‑30 (KR 10‑2010‑0083829). All references below predate that date.

One housekeeping flag: the task prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the supplied source header and the session date say 2026‑09‑28. Nothing in this § 103 analysis turns on the discrepancy, but I'm noting it rather than silently picking one.

1. Framework applied

A § 103(a) rejection requires: (i) each claimed element disclosed or suggested in the prior art, and (ii) an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006); MPEP 2143). KSR expressly permits reliance on "design incentives and other market forces," "the nature of the problem to be solved," and combinations that are "obvious to try" where the prior art identifies a known technique available for a predictable purpose. The specification itself supplies the problem statement and the expected physics (Eq. 13–15: insertion force grows exponentially with insertion length L and grows with the friction coefficient μ), which is highly useful as evidence of what a POSITA was motivated to do.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a mechanical or nuclear engineer (B.S. + ~2–5 years, or equivalent) with experience in non‑destructive examination of nuclear steam generator tubing and in‑pipe robotic delivery systems.

2. The references available on this record

Most material references cited on the face of US 8,775,100:

Supplementary (not on the face of the patent, found via search — flagged for completeness): EP 0 469 753 B1 (Westinghouse, flux‑detector distribution) teaches that detector/segment length should be ≈7% or less of the tube's minimum bend radius, with the caveat that reducing tubing ID requires increasing bend radius or shrinking the detector. That is directly probative of dependent claim 3.

3. Element mapping and proposed combinations

3.1 Claim 1 (independent) — proposed primary combination

US 5,174,164 (Wilheim) in view of WO 02/06720 (CEA).

Reason to combine. Both references are in the same field (delivery/inspection devices traversing nuclear/industrial tubing), and the problem — insertion/withdrawal force in long curved or helical tubing — is a recognized one that both address. '164 addresses it by low‑friction sliding (Delrin beads); CEA addresses positioning/propulsion by wheels distributed around the circumference. Because the specification itself acknowledges the design rule "a material having a low friction coefficient for the cable may be used or a structure in a shape causing less friction, such as a wheel, may be adopted," the substitution of rolling contact (wheels) for sliding contact (low‑friction beads) is the epitome of a predictable, known‑technique substitution yielding the expected result (rolling friction < sliding friction). The patent's own Eq. (13) establishes that maximum insertion length is inversely proportional to μ, i.e., the result is a result‑effective variable — a POSITA seeking to extend reach would predictably reduce μ. That is a rational underpinning under KSR.

3.2 Claims 13 and 15 (independent) — proposed combination

US 5,174,164 + WO 02/06720, optionally further in view of US 6,450,104.

• The "one side protrudes out of the body part and the other side extends to be proximate to an inner center" (claim 13) and "single wheel part passing through the body part … both ends … protrude" (claim 15) limitations are geometric choices to maximize wheel radius. The patent's own text states friction is inversely proportional to wheel radius; a POSITA need only enlarge the wheel to the casing diameter to obtain the stated benefit — routine design optimization of a disclosed technique (In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289).
• CEA's lever‑mounted wheels and front/rear wheel sets, plus the module casing "hollowed out in the center which allows it to pass through more acute bends," suggest the through‑body axle geometry.
• US 6,450,104 supplies the complementary teaching of flexible couplings between segments expressly for negotiating 90° turns, reinforcing the "bead‑necklace + flex joints" architecture.

3.3 Dependent claims

4. Where the rejection is weakest (candid gaps)

1. The "cable insertion part helically formed on an outer circumference" limitation is not squarely disclosed. '164 wraps the conductor around the core member inside the bead bore; CEA runs stiffening cables through internal sheaths 42. I found no face‑of‑the‑patent reference that teaches a helical external channel on a segment body. An examiner would have to argue this is an obvious routing/design choice (non‑protrusion; stress distribution — the very rationale the patent gives). This is the single strongest non‑obviousness argument available to the patentee on claim 1.
2. Wheels vs. sliding beads. '164's beads are themselves the low‑friction bearing surface; nothing in '164 suggests replacing them with rolling wheels. The combination therefore depends on CEA (or the crawler art) as the source of the wheel teaching, and on the specification's own admission to bridge the two. Expect the patentee to argue "teaching away" — but '164's emphasis on low friction for anti‑seizing purposes points toward, not away from, lowering μ.
3. No single reference anticipates. This is a § 103 case, not § 102; the record as supplied contains no single reference teaching the full claim 1 combination.
4. I could not obtain the text of JP 2002‑318293 A, which the JP examiner relied on as D2. If its disclosure includes a segmented, wheels‑in‑curved‑pipe inspection device, it could materially strengthen (or complicate) the combination. Treat my characterization of D2 as unverified.
5. No prosecution‑history access. The claims as granted evidently survived the art cited above; the specific allowance rationale is not in the supplied record, so I cannot say what the examiner considered and rejected.

5. Secondary considerations

• No objective evidence of non‑obviousness is in the supplied record — no commercial success, licensing, copying, or long‑felt‑need evidence, and no unexpected‑results data.
• The "Effect" section's listed advantages (lower insertion force, less vibration/noise, no pneumatic push‑puller, retrofit to existing ECT equipment) are predictable consequences of lowering the effective friction coefficient — a result‑effective variable explicitly modeled in the patent's own equations. That weakens their probative value (KSR; Pfizer v. Apotex).
• The patent is by a government research institute (KAERI) and the earlier litigation review found no assertion activity; there is thus no litigation record (e.g., an invalidity holding or a denial of summary judgment) to cite either way.

6. Conclusion

On the record supplied, claims 1–16 are vulnerable to a pre‑AIA § 103(a) rejection built on:

• Primary: US 5,174,164 A (Wilheim / Westinghouse) — the "bead‑necklace" segmented probe cable with a central steel core, a helically wrapped signal conductor, low‑friction bead bodies and a through‑bore, expressly for a nuclear steam generator inspection tube;
• Secondary: WO 02/06720 A1 (CEA) — a train of modules with circumferentially distributed wheels and stiffening cables passing through all modules for balanced axial force; and
• Cumulative: US 6,450,104 B1 (flexible inter‑segment couplings for 90° bends), WO 02/70943 A2, US 5,174,165, KR 100793904 B1 and US 2012/0006134 A1 for the remaining dependent‑claim details.

The strongest articulated motivation is that the patent itself recites the governing physics (insertion force grows exponentially with length and with μ) and offers wheels and low‑friction materials as the remedy — the classic KSR "known technique applied to a known problem with predictable results."

The principal counter‑argument is that no face‑of‑record reference discloses a cable‑insertion channel helically formed on the outer circumference of each segment body, and that no reference suggests converting '164's sliding low‑friction beads into rolling wheels. A patentee resisting rejection would anchor on those two points and demand the examiner articulate why the bead cable of '164 would be modified to accept wheels.

This is a technical obviousness assessment based on the face‑of‑record prior art; it is not a legal opinion on validity. Where I could not verify a reference (notably JP 2002‑318293 A and the prosecution history), I have said so explicitly rather than inferring content.