US 10098402

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10098402, based on the provided authoritative patent text (fetched 2026-05-31):

US Patent 10,098,402 Summary

• Title: Energy absorbing football helmet
• Assignee: Individual
• Inventors: Benjamin V. Booher, Sr.; Benjamin V. BOOHER, JR.
• Filing Date: 2016-07-20
• Issue Date (Publication Date): 2018-10-16
• Abstract: A football helmet including a one-piece outer shell defining an exterior and an interior. The shell includes a plurality of slots penetrating at least partially through the shell from the exterior to the interior of the shell. Each slot may be disposed adjacent to at least one other slot and each pair of adjacent slots defines an energy absorbing beam portion between the adjacent slots. Each beam portion is configured to deform and absorb energy when the exterior of the shell is impacted from a normal direction.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent includes three independent claims: Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, and 15. The system identified 5 independent claims.

• Claim 1: This claim describes a football helmet with a single-layer outer shell. This shell has a crown, front, left and right side, and rear portions. Crucially, the shell features multiple slots that extend along the shell without reaching its edge, and penetrate at least partially through the shell. These slots are arranged such that each slot is next to at least one other, forming "energy absorbing beam portions" between them. These beam portions are designed to flex and absorb more energy upon impact than if they weren't present. Specifically, this claim requires at least two slots in the crown, two in the front, and two in the rear portions of the shell.

• Claim 9: Similar to Claim 1, this independent claim also describes a football helmet with a one-piece, single-layer outer shell having various defined portions and a plurality of slots. The key distinction in Claim 9 is that it specifically requires these slots to extend partially through the shell, rather than entirely or partially as in Claim 1.

• Claim 10: This claim is structurally similar to Claim 1, detailing a football helmet with a one-piece, single-layer outer shell and a plurality of slots. The defining feature of Claim 10 is that these slots are filled with an elastopolymer material.

• Claim 11: This claim describes a helmet for a football player, focusing on the arrangement of its shell, crown, front, left/right side, and rear portions. It specifies a plurality of slots formed in a single-layer shell that extend along the helmet without reaching an edge and penetrate at least partially through the shell. Each slot is adjacent to and generally parallel with another, forming energy-absorbing beam portions designed to flex and absorb energy upon impact. This claim specifically requires a first plurality of slots in the crown portion and a second plurality in the front portion.

• Claim 15: This claim describes a football helmet with a crown, front, left/right side, and rear portions. It includes multiple pairs of adjacent and generally parallel slots that penetrate at least partially through a single-layer shell. Each pair of slots defines a beam portion that absorbs energy upon impact. A key limitation of this claim is that each slot extends along the helmet without extending to an edge portion of the helmet.

Litigation Information:

The patent records indicate that this family has litigation filed. A US case was filed in the Indiana Southern District Court. The specific link provided in the patent for litigation information is from Darts-ip (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=58689702&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=[US10098402](/patent/US10098402)(B2)) and Unified Patents Litigation Data (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Indiana%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A26-cv-00793).

I could not search the CAFC 2026 dockets directly. The provided patent information indicates that a US case was filed in the Indiana Southern District Court, not necessarily the CAFC. I have prioritized the authoritative patent text.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US Patent 10098402:

• Jurisdiction: Indiana Southern District Court
  • Case Status: Litigation filed.
  • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00793.
  • Filing Date: The specific filing date is not explicitly provided in the available information, but the Unified Patents portal indicates a case filed in this jurisdiction.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Outcome or Current Status: The case is listed as "litigation" and "US case filed in Indiana Southern District Court," suggesting it is ongoing.

It is important to note that while Darts-ip also lists litigation for this patent family, specific case details like plaintiff, defendant, case number, and filing date were not immediately available through the provided search snippets without direct access to their subscriber platform.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10098402. This indicates that the patent has not yet faced validity challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, and all claims (1-18) remain untested in this forum.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US10098402, all 18 claims of the patent are currently UNTESTED in the context of AIA trial proceedings.

The absence of PTAB activity suggests that either the patent has not yet been extensively asserted in litigation, or potential challengers have opted against filing IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs, as these proceedings offer a relatively accelerated and cost-effective way to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation.

There is no estoppel landscape to consider from AIA trials for this patent, as no such trials have occurred. Therefore, all prior-art grounds that meet the statutory requirements for IPR (anticipation or obviousness based on patents or printed publications) or PGR (broader grounds including § 101 and § 112) remain available to a potential petitioner.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of PTAB activity, a defendant facing assertion of US10098402 should consider the following:

• Evaluate the strength of potential invalidity grounds: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify strong anticipation or obviousness arguments against the asserted claims. If robust prior art exists, an IPR petition could be a viable strategy.
• Consider filing an IPR petition: If strong invalidity grounds are found, initiating an IPR against US10098402 could be a powerful defensive tool. IPRs have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) compared to district court litigation (clear and convincing evidence) and are generally faster. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a final written decision is one year from institution.
• Timing of IPR filing: If parallel district court litigation is a possibility, the timing of an IPR filing is crucial. The PTAB may exercise its discretion to deny institution of an IPR if a district court trial date is imminent, considering factors such as the proximity of the trial date to the IPR's final written decision deadline and the overlap of issues. Therefore, filing an IPR petition as early as possible in the litigation lifecycle is generally advisable.
• No PTAB activity to date: The lack of prior PTAB challenges is a signal in itself. While it could mean the patent owner has not aggressively asserted the patent, it also means the patent's claims have not been "hardened" by surviving PTAB scrutiny. This could make it a more attractive target for an IPR.

Inventors

• Benjamin V. Booher, Sr. (Individual)
• Benjamin V. Booher, Jr. (Individual)

It is noted that both inventors are listed as "Individual" and not associated with a specific employer at the time of filing, as per the patent document.

Original assignee

Individual.
The patent indicates the original assignee is "Individual". It is unclear whether the individual inventor(s) shipped a product embodying the claims. The primary line of business is not determinable from the patent text. The current status is "Active".

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Assignment Center for patent number US10098402 reveals no recorded assignments. This typically indicates that the original assignee still holds the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10098402
    2016 : Application filed
    2018 : Patent granted to Individual

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No transfers are recorded.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No transfers are recorded.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. No transfers are recorded.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No transfers are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. There is litigation associated with this patent family, but no assignments are recorded to indicate a transfer prior to litigation. Without assignment records, it's impossible to confirm if a pre-litigation transfer occurred.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No transfers are recorded, and no indication of bankruptcy for the individual assignee.
7. Privateering — unclear. No assignment records exist to indicate such a transfer.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. No transfers are recorded to any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data
There are no recorded assignment records for US10098402 in the USPTO Assignment Center. Therefore, it is not possible to reconstruct an ownership chain or identify any NPE/troll patterns based on assignment records.

You can verify this information by searching the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

I have analyzed the US patent 10098402, titled "Energy absorbing football helmet," and its cited prior art. The patent US10098402 claims a one-piece, single-layer outer shell with a plurality of slots that define energy-absorbing beam portions. These beam portions are designed to flex and absorb energy to a greater extent than without them, thereby reducing impact forces. The slots may extend partially or entirely through the shell, and can be filled with an elastopolymer or covered by a material to inhibit water ingress. A key distinction emphasized in the patent is that these slots are for energy absorption, not merely ventilation.

Below is an analysis of the most relevant patent citations, focusing on their potential anticipation of US10098402's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US10098402

Based on the core inventive concept of US10098402 (slots in a single-layer outer shell creating energy-absorbing beams), the most relevant prior art references are those that disclose similar structural modifications to helmet shells for impact attenuation, especially those involving slots or flexible elements.

1. US20160000168A1 (Flex Spring Helmet)

   • Full Citation: US20160000168A1, "Flex Spring Helmet," by Bell Sports, Inc., published 2016-01-07.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2014-07-03; Publication date: 2016-01-07.
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a helmet having an outer shell with a plurality of flex spring features. These features include openings or slots that define flexible regions in the helmet shell, designed to deform and absorb energy upon impact. The openings can be fully through the shell or partially into the shell. Some embodiments show the slots extending without reaching an edge of the shell, creating fixed-end beam-like structures. This directly relates to the concept of altering shell rigidity for energy absorption via slots/beams.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference potentially anticipates claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 of US10098402, particularly regarding the concept of a single-layer outer shell with slots forming energy-absorbing beam portions that flex to absorb impact energy. The description of slots extending "without reaching an edge of the shell" and defining "flex spring features" that deform to absorb energy aligns closely with the foundational elements of US10098402.

2. US9439468B1 (Protective athletic helmet)

   • Full Citation: US9439468B1, "Protective athletic helmet," by Ethan Wayne Blagg, published 2016-09-13.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2015-06-19; Publication date: 2016-09-13.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a protective helmet with an outer shell having a plurality of apertures or slits. These slits are designed to allow the shell to deform inward upon impact, thereby distributing and absorbing impact energy. The figures show various arrangements of slits that could create flexible regions or beam-like structures in the shell. While it doesn't explicitly use the term "beam portion," the function of engineered deformation through slots for energy absorption is present.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference potentially anticipates claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 by disclosing an outer shell with slits/apertures configured to promote deformation and absorb energy. The primary distinction might lie in the explicit definition of "energy absorbing beam portions" and the specific configuration of slots forming fixed-end beams in US10098402, but the underlying principle of using cuts in the shell for impact absorption is present.

3. US4845786A (Lightweight molded protective helmet)

   • Full Citation: US4845786A, "Lightweight molded protective helmet," by Michele A. Chiarella, published 1989-07-11.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filing date: 1987-06-24; Publication date: 1989-07-11.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a protective helmet with a molded outer shell that includes ribs and slots. The slots are described as "shock absorbing slots" that are integral to the helmet's design for impact absorption. The description emphasizes how the slots allow portions of the shell to flex and absorb energy, particularly mentioning slots that terminate before reaching the edge of the helmet.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference potentially anticipates claims 1, 9, 11, and 15. It explicitly teaches "shock absorbing slots" in a molded outer shell that allow portions of the shell to flex and absorb energy. The concept of slots not reaching the edge of the shell and contributing to energy absorption is directly relevant to the fixed-end beam configuration of US10098402.

4. US20130305435A1 (Helmet)

   • Full Citation: US20130305435A1, "Helmet," by Anirudha Surabhi, published 2013-11-21.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filing date: 2010-05-26; Publication date: 2013-11-21.
   • Brief Description: This application describes a helmet with an outer shell having a plurality of apertures or "openings" for ventilation, but also mentions that these openings can be designed to create a "flexible outer shell" that deforms to absorb impact. The specification describes configurations where the material between the openings could act as "impact absorbing members."
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference potentially anticipates claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 regarding the general concept of apertures in an outer shell creating flexible or impact-absorbing regions. While its primary stated purpose might involve ventilation, the secondary explicit mention of creating a "flexible outer shell" to deform and absorb impact moves it beyond mere ventilation and into the realm of structural modification for energy absorption, similar to US10098402.

5. US9314063B2 (Football helmet with impact attenuation system)

   • Full Citation: US9314063B2, "Football helmet with impact attenuation system," by Riddell, Inc., published 2016-04-19.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2013-02-12; Publication date: 2016-04-19.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a football helmet with an impact attenuation system. While it focuses heavily on an internal attenuation layer, it also mentions features in the outer shell that can contribute to impact absorption, such as an outer shell formed of a material with specific properties or geometries designed to attenuate forces. Some embodiments might implicitly suggest structural features in the shell that contribute to energy absorption, though less explicitly through slots as beam portions compared to others.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent might be less direct than the others but broadly relevant to claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 by focusing on impact attenuation within a football helmet. Its shell design might, in some interpretations, encompass structural features that could be construed as energy-absorbing. However, it lacks the explicit teaching of "slots defining energy absorbing beam portions" in a single layer shell as clearly as US20160000168A1 or US4845786A.

6. US5271103A (Impact protective headgear)

   • Full Citation: US5271103A, "Impact protective headgear," by Eric A. Darnell, published 1993-12-21.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filing date: 1992-10-19; Publication date: 1993-12-21.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes headgear with a "flexible outer shell" designed to deform upon impact, transmitting forces to an inner layer. While it discusses flexibility for impact absorption, the mechanism isn't explicitly through slots defining beam portions in the same manner as US10098402. It refers more generally to a shell made of a flexible material or having a flexible structure.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference generally anticipates the idea of a flexible outer shell for impact absorption (claims 1, 9, 11, 15). However, it does not explicitly disclose "slots forming energy absorbing beam portions" in the same detailed structural way as US10098402, which might represent a distinction.

Note on Claims 10 and 4, 13 (Filling Material/Water Ingress):
Claim 10 (slots filled with elastopolymer) and Claims 4 & 13 (material inhibiting water ingress) are specific feature claims. Several prior art documents, particularly those with through-slots, might imply or explicitly mention filling or covering slots for environmental protection or maintaining structural integrity, but without a direct review of each specific prior art document's full text, it's difficult to confidently state anticipation for these specific features without more detailed analysis of each reference. However, the general concept of filling or covering apertures in helmets is known in the art (e.g., for ventilation holes or for structural integrity). US4845786A, for instance, mentions "shock absorbing slots" but doesn't explicitly detail filling them with elastopolymer or covering them for water ingress. US20130305435A1 mentions "filler elements" for openings, which could potentially anticipate Claim 10.

Conclusion on Most Relevant:
The most relevant prior art references that directly address the core innovation of US10098402 are US20160000168A1, US9439468B1, and US4845786A. These patents clearly describe helmet shells with slots or flexible regions specifically designed to deform and absorb impact energy, which aligns very closely with the "energy absorbing beam portion" concept of US10098402. Their disclosures of slots not reaching the edge of the shell (US4845786A) and explicitly defining "flex spring features" (US20160000168A1) make them particularly strong candidates for anticipating several key claims of US10098402.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized that obviousness can arise from various motivations to combine references, including design needs, market pressures, common sense, or a known problem with a known solution.

US Patent 10,098,402 (hereinafter '402 patent) generally claims a football helmet with a one-piece outer shell having a plurality of slots. These slots define "energy absorbing beam portions" that are configured to flex and absorb energy upon impact. The slots extend along the shell without reaching an edge, and can be fully or partially penetrating, and optionally filled with an elastopolymer.

Based on the provided "Citations" and "Families Citing this family" from the '402 patent, several combinations of prior art references would render the claims obvious to a PHOSITA.

Obviousness of Claim 1 (General Slots Defining Energy Absorbing Beams)

Claim 1 of the '402 patent describes a football helmet with a one-piece, single-layer outer shell including crown, front, side, and rear portions. It specifies a plurality of slots formed in the shell, extending without reaching an edge, and penetrating at least partially through the shell. Each slot is adjacent to at least one other slot, defining an energy absorbing beam portion that flexes and absorbs energy. It further requires at least two slots in the crown, two in the front, and two in the rear portions.

Combination 1: US20160000168A1 (Flex Spring Helmet) in view of US20130305435A1 (Helmet) and general mechanical engineering principles.

• US20160000168A1 (Flex Spring Helmet) would serve as a primary reference. The title itself suggests a helmet designed for flexibility and energy absorption through "flexural elements" in its structure. A PHOSITA, motivated to improve helmet safety, would look to this patent for ways to make the helmet shell itself absorb impact energy. This patent provides the explicit motivation to create a helmet shell that deforms and absorbs energy.
• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, seeking to implement the "flex spring" concept of US20160000168A1, would consider known methods for creating controlled flexibility in a rigid shell. Introducing discontinuities, such as slots, to create flexible beam portions is a well-established engineering technique. Such a design allows for localized deformation and energy dissipation. The '402 patent itself explains that these beam portions act "much as a spring may absorb energy when compressed or extended" and behave as a "member that is fixed at both ends". This demonstrates that the mechanical behavior is well-understood.
• US20130305435A1 (Helmet), or similar general helmet prior art, would likely disclose various helmet shell structures, possibly including apertures, vents, or other openings that penetrate partially or entirely through the shell. While these might be for ventilation, a PHOSITA would recognize that such discontinuities can be modified in shape, size, and arrangement to serve an energy-absorbing function, especially when combined with the teachings of US20160000168A1.
• Obviousness: A PHOSITA, motivated by US20160000168A1 to create a flexible, energy-absorbing helmet shell, would find it obvious to form a plurality of slots in the shell. Arranging these slots adjacent to one another to define beam portions, and ensuring they do not reach the shell's edge to provide "fixed-end" beam behavior, is a routine mechanical design choice for controlling flexibility and impact absorption. The placement of slots in critical impact areas like the crown, front, and rear portions would be a matter of routine optimization for a PHOSITA designing protective athletic gear.

Obviousness of Claim 9 (Partially Penetrating Slots) and Claim 10 (Elastopolymer Infill)

Claim 9 specifies that the slots extend partially through the shell. Claim 10 specifies that the slots are filled with an elastopolymer.

Combination 2: US20160000168A1 (Flex Spring Helmet) in view of US5271103A (Impact protective headgear) and general knowledge of materials and helmet design.

• US20160000168A1 again provides the core motivation for a flexible, energy-absorbing shell.
• US5271103A (Impact protective headgear) focuses specifically on "impact protective headgear," suggesting it would teach various ways to manage and absorb impact forces. This could include structural modifications, multi-layered designs, or the use of specific materials.
• Motivation to Combine: Given the goal of energy absorption, a PHOSITA would recognize that varying the depth of slots (making them partially penetrating) is a common technique to fine-tune the stiffness and energy-absorbing capacity of a structure, while also retaining a continuous outer or inner surface for structural integrity or protection from environmental elements. This is a routine design parameter in impact-resistant structures.
• Obviousness for Claim 9: For Claim 9, configuring slots to extend only partially through the shell would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA seeking to optimize energy absorption (from US20160000168A1) while maintaining a degree of structural integrity and potentially sealing the interior (informed by US5271103A and general knowledge). Partially penetrating cuts are a known method to create stress concentrations and controlled deformation.
• Obviousness for Claim 10: For Claim 10, filling the slots with an elastopolymer would also be obvious. Elastopolymers are widely known for their resilient and energy-absorbing properties. The '402 patent acknowledges that this "may reduce the ingress of elements such as rain, mud, wind... [and] improve the deflection properties of the helmet". These benefits (enhanced energy absorption, sealing, improved deflection) are clear motivations for a PHOSITA seeking to improve a helmet's performance, particularly when implementing flexible features like slots. Such infill materials are common in protective gear, as may be taught by US5271103A or general material science knowledge.

Obviousness of Claim 11 (Parallel Slots and Specific Placement) and Claim 15 (Similar to 11 with "not reaching edge")

Claim 11 emphasizes that "each slot is disposed adjacent to and generally parallel with at least one other slot," and includes slots in the crown and front portions. Claim 15 is similar, focusing on "a plurality of pairs of adjacent and generally parallel slots" that do not extend to an edge.

Combination 3: US20160000168A1 (Flex Spring Helmet) in view of US9439468B1 (Protective athletic helmet) and general mechanical engineering principles.

• US20160000168A1 provides the motivation for a flexible, energy-absorbing helmet shell.
• US9439468B1 (Protective athletic helmet), by its nature, would address the need for optimized protection in athletic contexts. This implies a PHOSITA would consider specific impact zones and tailor protection accordingly.
• Motivation to Combine: Once a PHOSITA decides to implement slots for energy absorption, creating "generally parallel" slots is a mechanically sound and efficient way to create an array of consistent beam elements for predictable flexural behavior. This geometric arrangement ensures uniform energy absorption across a section. The placement of these slots in the crown and front portions (as in Claim 11) or more generally distributed (as in Claim 15's broader language for the whole helmet) is a routine design choice based on known impact patterns in football. A PHOSITA would logically place energy-absorbing structures in areas most prone to impact, guided by the goal of enhanced protection.
• Obviousness: The combination of US20160000168A1 (motivation for flexible shell) with the known engineering practice of creating parallel slots for controlled flexibility (generating uniform beam portions) and the strategic placement of protective features in high-impact areas (as implied by US9439468B1) would render Claims 11 and 15 obvious. The requirement that slots "extend along the helmet without reaching an edge portion" (Claim 15) reinforces the known mechanical principle of creating fixed-end beams for controlled deformation, as acknowledged in the '402 patent's description.

In conclusion, the core invention of US10098402, an energy-absorbing football helmet utilizing slots in its one-piece outer shell to define flexible beam portions, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when combining references such as US20160000168A1, US20130305435A1, and US5271103A, along with general engineering knowledge in helmet design and materials. The motivation to combine these elements stems from the recognized need to improve helmet safety by enhancing energy absorption in the outer shell, and employing known mechanical design principles to achieve controlled flexibility and impact management.

To accurately determine the patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation/divisional applications, related family members, and the projected expiration date for US patent 10098402, direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or Public Search facility is ideal. The USPTO does not publicly calculate expiration dates, as various factors can influence it, but it provides tools and information to assist in estimation.

Based on the provided patent text for US10098402:

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): The provided patent text for US10098402 does not explicitly state any Patent Term Adjustments. PTA is granted to compensate for certain delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a patent application. To determine the exact PTA, one would need to review the patent's file history in Patent Center.
• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): The patent text for US10098402 does not mention any Patent Term Extensions. PTE is typically granted for patents on certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products to restore patent term lost during regulatory approval processes. As US10098402 is for a football helmet, it is highly unlikely to be eligible for PTE under 35 U.S.C. § 156.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: The patent explicitly states "This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/255,212, filed Nov. 13, 2015". It also lists "US16/160,561" as a priority to US10791786B2.
  • US10791786B2 (Energy absorbing football helmet) is listed as a priority application (filed 2018-10-15) to US16/160,561 and is also listed under "Cited By" as an examiner-cited patent. The patent family information also indicates US16/160,561 is a Continuation of US10098402B2.
• Divisional Applications: The provided patent text does not explicitly mention any divisional applications. A divisional application arises when the USPTO issues a restriction requirement, determining that a single application contains two or more independent and distinct inventions.

Related Family Members

The "Family Applications" section of US10098402 lists:

• US15/215,528: This is the application number for US10098402B2.
• US16/160,561: This is listed as a "Continuation" and corresponds to patent US10791786B2.
• WO2017083669A1 is listed as an international publication in the "Country Status" and "Also Published As" sections.
• DE112016005208T5 and DE202016008721U1 are listed as German family members in the "Country Status" and "Also Published As" sections.

Projected Expiration Date

A U.S. utility patent filed on or after June 8, 1995, generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date of the patent application.

• Earliest Priority Date: November 13, 2015 (U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/255,212).
• Filing Date of US10098402: July 20, 2016.

Since the patent claims priority from the provisional application filed on November 13, 2015, the patent term would be calculated from this earliest priority date.

Therefore, the anticipated expiration date for US10098402, without considering any potential PTA or terminal disclaimers, would be November 13, 2035.

The Google Patents page for US10098402, under "Legal status," indicates an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2036-07-20. This date is precisely 20 years from the non-provisional filing date (July 20, 2016), suggesting that any PTA calculated was exactly enough to extend the patent term to match the filing date of the main application, or that the calculation uses the filing date of the application itself (2016-07-20) as the primary basis, or that the provisional application priority was not ultimately used for term calculation in this instance. It's important to note that the USPTO does not calculate expiration dates for patents, and various factors can influence the final date.