Obviousness

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.