US 10444099

I'll verify the patent details against live sources, including any 2026 litigation activity.

US Patent 10,444,099 — Verified Summary

I searched for this specific number (and checked for 2026 Federal Circuit activity). Findings below; the full patent text was also supplied as authoritative context.

Bibliographic Data

Note the assignment record (recorded Aug. 10, 2016, REEL/FRAME 039392/0285) lists an effective date of 2014-03-31 for the Sicking → UAB Research Foundation assignment, which is earlier than the provisional priority date — worth flagging if chain-of-title matters for your purpose, since the cover sheet date and the priority date do not match.

Abstract (verbatim)

"In one embodiment, a helmet testing system includes a sled adapted to support a bullet dummy, a track along which the sled can travel, a target dummy support apparatus adapted to support a target dummy at a point near an end of the track, and an impact cushion positioned at the end of the track that is adapted to halt forward motion of the sled along the track to enable the bullet dummy to be launched from the sled and into the target dummy."

Independent Claim — Plain-Language Overview

The patent contains 14 claims, of which exactly one is independent (claim 1). Claims 2–14 all depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1.

Claim 1 — "Protective helmet testing system" (an apparatus claim). It requires six cooperating elements:

1. A sled.
2. A bullet dummy support apparatus mechanically coupled to the sled, including an adjustable boom arm that holds the "bullet" dummy. Adjusting the boom arm changes either the dummy's height relative to the sled, its angular position relative to the sled, or both. The claim then adds structural specifics: a vertical post, with the boom arm's rotatable shaft received in one end of the post and the post's other end coupled to the sled; the shaft rotates about its own longitudinal axis to set the angular position of the boom arm (and thus the dummy). It further requires a hook at one end of the boom arm from which the dummy hangs, and a lift mechanism coupled to the boom arm to raise/lower the boom arm and hook (thereby setting dummy height). The specification describes the lift mechanism as, in the illustrated embodiment, a hydraulic jack, and provides an optional eyelet as a second attachment point.
3. A track along which the sled travels.
4. A target dummy support apparatus that holds the target dummy near one end of the track.
5. An impact cushion at the end of the track that halts the sled's forward motion so the bullet dummy is launched off the sled and into the target dummy — the core "launch" mechanism that converts sled momentum into a free-flying dummy.
6. (Functional limitation tying it together) the halting-and-launching relationship described above.

The key point for infringement/validity analysis: claim 1 is not a bare "sled + dummy + track" claim. Its only distinguishing structural recitations beyond the general system are the vertical post / rotatable shaft / boom arm / hook / lift mechanism sub-combination of the bullet dummy support apparatus. The dependent claims then add: dummy anthropometry and instrumentation (claims 2–4: linear accelerometers, angular rate sensors, load cells); sled impact beam (5); track drive system with motor and chain (6–7); target dummy support via cable, winch, and positioning motor (8–10); and impact cushion details — impact head on a beam of an impact member with a force distribution plate, energy-absorbing padding, and backstop (11–13), plus an impact-cushion-mounted platform for the target dummy (14).

Technical Gist

The system enables dummy-into-dummy (helmet-to-helmet) impact testing using full-body anthropomorphic test devices (Hybrid III crash test dummies, available in 50th and 95th percentile weight classes) rather than a bare instrumented headform struck by a pendulum or dropped onto a block. The sled is chain-driven down a track and stopped abruptly by a spring/foam-backed impact cushion; the hanging dummy then continues forward into a suspended target dummy. Both dummies can be instrumented (head linear accelerometers and angular rate sensors; neck load cells) and dressed in sport-specific equipment (helmet, pads, cleats, uniform). The spec also expressly contemplates a "weaponization" test variant in which the bullet dummy is propelled into a rectangular polymer sheet, with peak deflection used as a measure of a helmet's capacity to deliver a blow.

Litigation / 2026 Docket Check — Uncertainty Flagged

I found no Federal Circuit or district court activity for US 10,444,099. My searches of the USPTO record and for CAFC 2026 dockets referencing the patent number or the UAB Research Foundation returned zero results. I cannot authoritatively state that no such litigation exists — PACER/CourtListener docket data is not fully indexed by general web search, and a null search result is not proof of absence. If you need a definitive litigation position, that requires a direct PACER/Docket Navigator query; treat my result as "no publicly indexed hits" rather than "no litigation."

I also note the patent's own "Cited By" record shows it has been cited by US 10,837,887 B2 and US 11,255,765 B2 (Richard A. Brandt, "Helmet testing equipment and methodology") — a potential licensing or design-around monitoring lead, but mere citation is not evidence of a dispute.

Source

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US10444099/en (full text, claims, and prosecution/legal-events record)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/10444099 (corroborating copy of the disclosure)

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10444099 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

The initial searches surfaced mostly unrelated matches. Let me query litigation-specific databases directly.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,444,099

Bottom line

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,444,099 was found in any of the sources searched. There is no district court action (PACER/docket aggregators), no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal, no PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), and no ITC Section 337 investigation that I could locate that names this patent. I am unable to list plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because no case was identified.

What I searched and what came back

Important caution on number hygiene (per your strict rule): several search results contained the string "10444099," but these are not the patent and must not be conflated with it:

• UK Companies House Gazette entry — this is a company number (10444099) alongside "EDGE END CONSULTANCY LIMITED," not a patent.
• An FEC campaign-finance filing containing "10444099" — a transaction/record number.
• A Brazilian commercial registry (JUCISRS) entry — an unrelated protocol number.
• U.S. Patent 4,444,599 (a hydrogen-embrittlement patent) — a visually similar but different number, which I did not treat as this patent.

Patent status context (verified from the granted patent record)

• Patent: US 10,444,099 B2 — "Systems and methods for testing protective helmets"
• Inventor: Dean Sicking
• Assignee: UAB Research Foundation
• Application: US 15/036,444 (35 U.S.C. § 371 national stage of PCT/US2014/065802)
• Priority: 2013-11-14; Filed: 2014-11-14; Granted: 2019-10-15
• Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration 2035-10-29
• Maintenance: 4th-year fee paid 2023-04-04 (small entity)

Forward-citation note (not litigation)

The patent's "Cited By" records — e.g., US 10,837,887 B2 and US 11,255,765 B2 (Richard A. Brandt, "Helmet testing equipment and methodology") and US 12,214,397 B2 (Steven Hopf) — are subsequent patents that cite the '099 patent. A citation relationship is not a lawsuit and should not be reported as litigation.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence that no well-indexed litigation exists as of the search date: this is a university-owned, relatively narrow mechanical testing apparatus patent, and no assertion activity is reflected in public litigation trackers.
• Residual uncertainty: I could not open the live Unified Patents case list, PACER, or Docket Alarm directly (tool-step limits were reached); my findings rest on web-search coverage of those sources plus the patent's own Google Patents "family/cited-by" records, which would typically flag related litigation. A PACER docket search on "UAB Research Foundation" as plaintiff and a PTAB party-name search would be the definitive confirmation step, and I recommend running those directly before relying on the negative finding in any filing.

If you can authorize a direct PACER or Unified Patents portal query, I can confirm the null result definitively; based on the evidence available, however, I must report that no litigation is known for U.S. Patent No. 10,444,099.

I'll verify the "no proceedings" default against live sources before writing.

Two more targeted checks before I commit to the null result.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings have ever been filed against US 10,444,099 — 0 IPRs, 0 PGRs, 0 CBMs; accordingly the status breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, and the bottom-line defensive posture is that there is no PTAB record at all to work with: claims 1–14 are all UNTESTED, none has been canceled or narrowed by the Board, and a defendant today cannot borrow any institution decision, FWD, or claim-cancellation ruling from a prior challenger — but correspondingly, the patent owner also has no Board ruling to hide behind, and the first petitioner would face a clean slate with no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no adverse final written decision to cure.

No proceedings on file

There are no per-proceeding entries to report. The sections below would normally be populated per proceeding; they are intentionally absent because fabricating a proceeding number would violate the core constraint of this task.

What the structured data says (canonical): the USPTO Open Data Portal ("PTAB proceedings on file") block returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest.

Live verification performed 2026-09-30. I ran targeted searches against PTAB/P-TACTS material, the patent number, the patent owner, and the inventor. Results:

Important negative-result hygiene. The structured ODP block is my canonical source and it says zero. My web searches are a secondary check and only confirm "no publicly indexed hits." A null search is not proof of absence — P-TACTS dockets and non-indexed filings can lag. If this matters for a filing or a clearance, confirm with a direct P-TACTS query at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ui/home and a PACER/Docket Navigator pull.

What I found that is NOT about this patent (do not let it confuse the record). There is an active cluster of helmet-art IPRs prosecuted by Mips AB / Revelyst Sales LLC (e.g., petitions regarding US 9,271,536 and US 9,909,909, including IPR2025-01031). Those proceedings target different patents owned by different parties and have nothing to do with US 10,444,099. They are relevant only as background on how hard the rotational-impact helmet art is being litigated generally. Likewise, the patents US 10,837,887 B2 and US 11,255,765 B2 (Richard A. Brandt, "Helmet testing equipment and methodology") are merely later patents that cite 10,444,099 — a citation is not a proceeding and is not evidence of a dispute.

---

The only adversarial record that exists: the prosecution history

Since there is no FWD, no institution decision, and no settlement to analyze, the only substantive validity record on this patent is its own file history — and it is more interesting than the bibliographic table in the prior section conveys. The prior section already reproduced the legal-events timeline verbatim; building on it rather than repeating it:

Why this matters to a defendant. The examiner rejected the application finally, and the patent did not issue on the strength of the claims as originally filed — it issued only after an after-final submission and, critically, an advisory action interposed between the after-final response and the eventual allowance. An advisory action in this sequence is the classic signal that the after-final amendment was not entered as of right (e.g., it raised new issues or required further search), meaning further amendment/allowance-track practice followed before the 2019-06-20 allowance. Consequences:

• Estoppel by amendment / prosecution history estoppel. The claim 1 elements added to survive — the vertical post / rotatable shaft received in the post / hook at one end of the boom arm / lift mechanism coupled to the boom arm sub-combination — are, on the face of the claim and the file chronology, the likely reasons for allowance. A defendant should obtain the 2019-01-23 Final Rejection, the 2019-04-01 after-final response, the 2019-04-09 Advisory Action, and whatever amendment immediately preceded the 2019-06-20 allowance. Those papers will show exactly what the applicant conceded the prior art disclosed, which is the cleanest § 103 roadmap available because no petitioner has ever built one for the Board.
• § 325(d) cuts the other way from the usual case. There is no prior Board treatment of this patent, so the "substantially the same art previously presented to the Office" discretion has a prosecution record to anchor to. A petitioner should expect the Board to weigh whether the rejection art from 2019-01-23 is being recycled, and should affirmatively distinguish any art the examiner already considered.
• Uncertainty flag (do not over-read). I am inferring the significance of the advisory action from the event codes. I have not seen the papers, and the ODP events do not state which claims were amended or which references drove the final rejection. Treat the above as a research hypothesis to be confirmed by pulling the file wrapper, not as a finding.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 14 claims of US 10,444,099 are UNTESTED. There are no canceled claims and no claims sustained in any Board proceeding, because no Board proceeding exists. For the avoidance of doubt: independent claim 1 and every one of dependent claims 2–14 (dummy anthropometry and instrumentation in 2–4; sled impact beam in 5; motor-and-chain drive in 6–7; cable/winch/positioning motor in 8–10; impact head on a beam with force distribution plate, padding and backstop in 11–13; impact-cushion-mounted platform in 14) remains live and presumptively valid. Anyone telling you "claims 1–5 were canceled" about this patent is wrong; conversely, no one can tell you the claims are hardened either.

Estoppel landscape. There is nothing to estop. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) raises no bar against anyone, and § 325(e)(2) is equally inapplicable. A defendant is therefore the first mover and retains the full universe of prior-art grounds: § 102 and § 103 on the printed prior art (including the twelve references of record — US 4,674,911 (Energy Absorption Systems pneumatic crash cushion), US 5,623,094 (Mga Research "Sled testing system"), US 6,609,409 (TRW impact test stand for vehicle components), US 6,422,058, US 2005/0155441, US 2008/0016970, US 2013/0147117, JP 2007240402, JP H08170676, JP H0949780, and the historic US 171,769 / US 1,717,693) plus art the examiner never had. Note two structural limits on the AIA vehicles: PGR is time-barred (nine months from grant, i.e., closed by roughly 2020-07-15), and CBM is inapplicable both because this is a technological measurement apparatus rather than a financial/data-processing covered business method and because the CBM transitional program sunset for new petitions in 2020. IPR is the only live AIA vehicle. If a defendant has already been served with a complaint asserting this patent, watch the § 315(b) one-year clock.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has ever filed against this patent; there is no repeat-petitioner pattern, no defensive aggregator (I found no Unified Patents or RPX involvement) and no PTAB-origin Federal Circuit appeal, since an appeal requires an underlying Board decision. The patent owner, UAB Research Foundation, has not had to defend a single claim at the Board on this patent. The adjacent Mips/Revelyst helmet IPR cluster shows the surrounding art is contested, but it is a different patent family owned by different parties. The real-world read: this is a low-assertion, university-held test-equipment patent that has never been worth a challenger's filing fee — which is itself the signal the prompt asks about, in reverse. A well-asserted patent of this age attracts IPRs; this one has attracted none, which suggests either no one has been commercially threatened by it (likely) or any threatened party concluded the claim-1 boom-arm/post/hook/lift-mechanism combination was too narrow to read on their product (also plausible, and the more interesting hypothesis given claim 1's heavy structural recitations).

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant, do not rely on any IPR outcome — none exists. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch. Start with the file wrapper (Final Rejection 2019-01-23; after-final response 2019-04-01; Advisory Action 2019-04-09; the amendment preceding the 2019-06-20 Notice of Allowance) via USPTO Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Pull each of the twelve references of record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10444099/en.
2. Claim-construction attack is the highest-value first move, not a prior-art attack. Claim 1 requires the specific vertical post / rotatable shaft / adjustable boom arm / hook / lift mechanism sub-combination. If the accused product stops a sled against a cushion and launches a dummy without that boom-arm-and-post architecture (e.g., a different carriage, a pneumatic actuator, a single-piece mount, or a headform rather than a hung full-body dummy), the literal-infringement case may fail before validity is ever reached. Conversely, if the patent owner argues these elements are met by functional equivalents, the prosecution history from the advisory-action sequence becomes your estoppel exhibit.
3. If you are contemplating an IPR, act with the calendar in mind. No § 315(b) bar exists unless you have been served; if served, the petition is due within one year of service. The Board's statutory deadline is one year from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable for good cause, with the FWD due by that date and any Federal Circuit appeal after it. Given the patent's expiration on 2035-10-29, the commercial runway is long and the incentive to settle rather than try the case is with the patent owner.
4. Monitor the maintenance-fee docket. The record shows only the 4th-year fee paid 2023-04-04 (small entity). The next window (7.5-year fee) is the next lapse-risk checkpoint for a validity-through-abandonment strategy; treat the exact date as derived and verify at https://patentcenter.uspto.gov rather than relying on it.
5. Confirm the null result before relying on it. Query P-TACTS directly (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ui/home) by patent number, and check CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) for any PTAB-origin or district-court activity naming UAB Research Foundation and Dean Sicking. My searches and the ODP block both say zero, and the prior section separately found no district court or Federal Circuit activity — but for a filing, get the primary-source docket.

I'll verify the assignment record against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Inventors

Pattern review — no anomaly. This is a single-inventor patent, so the "all co-inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale tell is structurally inapplicable. The relevant inverse finding is that Sicking did not leave: he remained a UAB faculty member and continued filing UAB-assigned helmet patents for another decade (US 10,568,377 B2 in 2020; US 10,729,200 B2 in 2020; US 10,779,600 B2 in 2020; US 11,759,697 B2 in 2023, all naming Sicking and all UAB-assigned per the UAB library compilation). He is now described as a UAB School of Engineering emeritus professor. Continuity of inventor-to-assignee affiliation across the whole family is the opposite of a pre-fire-sale signal.

One adjacent data point worth recording but not a finding about this patent: Sicking's pre-UAB career (University of Nebraska–Lincoln / Texas A&M) produced guardrail and crash-cushion patents consistently recorded as "Licensed to Road Systems Inc., Motor Sports Technologies Inc., Interstate Steel Inc., etc." — i.e., an inventor whose practice is operating-company licensing, not assertion. His published CV lists those licensees by name. That prior behavior is consistent with the ownership history below, but the CV does not mention US 10,444,099 or any licensee of it.

Original assignee

UAB Research Foundation (rendered on this patent's cover as "UAB Research Foundation" / "The UAB Research Foundation"; the sibling US 10,568,377 renders it "The UAB REASEARCH FOUNDATION INC." with an apparent typographical error in the printed patent).

• Primary line of business: the technology-transfer / IP-holding foundation affiliated with the University of Alabama at Birmingham. It is a non-practicing IP-holding entity by design — a university foundation, not a product company. Commercialization is administered through UAB's Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (executive director Kathy Nugent is the UAB spokesperson quoted in the VICIS partnership release).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No. The '099 claims a testing system (sled, track, bullet-dummy boom-arm mount, target-dummy support, impact cushion). UAB built and operated such a rig — UAB's own reporting describes an 80-foot railed track with two instrumented dummies at Barber Motorsports Park, used to reconstruct helmet-to-helmet impacts — so UAB practiced the invention internally as a research facility, but the claims are not embodied in a UAB commercial product. I found no evidence the rig is sold.
• Current status: Operating (as a university foundation). The UAB library compilation of Sicking's patents is dated 2025 and lists US 10,444,099 B2 as a live UAB patent; the patent's own record shows the 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2023-04-04 and an adjusted expiration of 2035-10-29. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition signal for the UAB Research Foundation.
• Licensing activity (context, not an assignment): In January 2017, UAB and VICIS (Seattle-based football-helmet maker, ZERO1) announced a partnership to "combine technologies and intellectual property" to bring helmets to market. This is a licensing/collaboration lead for the UAB helmet portfolio generally. No record ties this specific '099 patent to VICIS, and a press announcement of an IP partnership is not a recorded assignment or an exclusive license — I could not retrieve the underlying agreement.

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments of US 10,444,099: exactly one. There is no post-issuance assignment, and the chain has never left the original assignee.

• 2014-03-31 (executed/effective) / recorded 2016-08-10 — Reel 039392 / 0285
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (event code "AS" in the patent's legal-events record)
  • Assignor: SICKING, DEAN
  • Assignee: UAB RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Birmingham, Alabama
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources I could reach. Neither the Google Patents legal-events record nor the Justia/Patents-Encyclopedia mirrors expose the recording correspondent or the recording attorney's name, firm, or address. The USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame detail view (which would show it) was not retrievable within my tool budget. I am flagging this as unresolved rather than guessing.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment. The inventor assigned his rights to UAB's tech-transfer foundation, which is the standard university route to title. The recording lag (executed Mar 2014; recorded Aug 2016) coincides with national-stage entry of PCT/US2014/065802 and is a procedural catch-up recording, not a transfer of ownership between successive holders.

Verification note: the only corroboration available to me is the patent's own legal-events table (2016-08-10 | AS | Assignment | UAB RESEARCH FOUNDATION, ALABAMA | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SICKING, DEAN;REEL/FRAME:039392/0285 | Effective date: 20140331). I could not open the Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or the legacy Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) to independently enumerate all reel/frame entries for patent number 10,444,099. Treat the "exactly one assignment" conclusion as resting on the patent record plus null results from owner/assignee searches, and confirm by running the patent-number query on the Assignment Center before relying on it in a filing.

Cross-reference results

Contradiction flagged with the previously generated summary

The prior "Patent summary" section states that the assignment's effective date of 2014-03-31 is "earlier than the provisional priority date." That is incorrect on the face of the record. The provisional priority date is 2013-11-14; 2014-03-31 is roughly 4.5 months later. The correct framing is that the assignment was executed ~4.5 months after the provisional filing and ~7.5 months before the 2014-11-14 PCT/non-provisional filing, then not recorded until 2016-08-10. There is no date inversion and no chain-of-title defect implied by the dates. I am overriding that sentence; the rest of the prior summary's bibliographic table is consistent with the record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10444099
    2013 : Provisional filed 2013-11-14
    2014 : Sicking assigns rights to UAB foundation
         : PCT filed 2014-11-14
    2016 : Assignment recorded 2016-08-10
         : Reel 039392 Frame 0285
    2016 : Pre grant publication 2016-10-06
    2017 : UAB and VICIS announce IP partnership
    2019 : Patent granted 2019-10-15
    2023 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2025 : Still owned by UAB Research Foundation

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the sense the rubric defines it, i.e. only the original assignment exists.

All eight NPE-pattern signals are absent or (for signal 3) simply undeterminable, and none of the affirmative indicators cluster. The entire chain is a single link: Sole inventor Dean Sicking → UAB Research Foundation, effective 2014-03-31, recorded 2016-08-10 at Reel 039392 / Frame 0285 (Assignment of Assignors Interest), with Google Patents independently listing UAB Research Foundation as current assignee — meaning no post-issuance transfer has ever occurred. There is no NPE in this chain: the holder is a non-practicing but non-asserting university foundation, the inventor stayed affiliated with the assignee for the following decade (later UAB-assigned patents through 2023), and the patent has no litigation, no PTAB proceeding, and no assertion campaign. The only residual gap is the unresolved recording correspondent for 039392/0285, which I could not retrieve and which would not change the verdict on a one-link chain.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10,444,099; then open Reel 039392 / Frame 0285 to capture the correspondent and confirm no subsequent reel/frame entries). Legacy equivalent: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll verify the patent record and gather details on each cited reference from live sources.

Now let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

I hit the tool-step cap partway through reference-by-reference verification. Below I flag exactly what I verified live versus what rests on the patent's own front-page citation table (which is authoritative for the bibliographic data).

---

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,444,099

1. Target patent verification (USPTO record)

The number searched was 10444099, literally. The record returned matches that number and no other.

Literal-ID hygiene note (per your rule, and because it matters here): the string "10444099" also appears in wholly unrelated records — a UK Companies House company number, an FEC filing number, and a Brazilian registry protocol. None of those are this patent, and none were used. Separately, U.S. Patent 4,444,599 is a different patent (a visually similar number) and was not treated as this patent. All analysis below uses only US 10,444,099's own claim set and its own citation table.

2. The standard applied — and the headline finding

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference anticipates a claim only if it discloses every limitation of that claim, arranged as in the claim. This is decisive here:

• Claim 1 is a five-element apparatus claim whose only non-generic structure is the bullet-dummy support sub-combination: vertical post → rotatable shaft received in the post → adjustable boom arm → hook at one end → lift mechanism coupled to the boom arm, all coupled to a sled that is stopped by an impact cushion so the dummy launches into a target dummy.
• Claims 2–14 all depend (directly or indirectly) on claim 1. A reference cannot anticipate claim 2, 5, 9, 13, etc. unless it also discloses everything in claim 1.

Finding: none of the 12 cited references — individually or as the examiner applied them — discloses the claim-1 combination. Every cited reference predates the 2013-11-14 priority date and is available as § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art (this is a post-AIA application), but their role in this record is § 103 element-supply, not § 102 anticipation. Any statement that one of these references "anticipates" claim 1 would be wrong on the face of the claim. Accordingly, the table below maps each reference to the claim limitations it most squarely discloses, and states plainly where anticipation is unavailable.

One important consequence, building on the earlier section: because the examiner finally rejected the application (2019-01-23), then received an after-final response (2019-04-01) and issued an Advisory Action (2019-04-09) before the allowance, the art below is likely the art the applicant had to argue around. That makes this table the starting point for any § 103 roadmap — and it means the prosecution record (which art was applied to which claim) is more probative than the references alone.

3. Reference-by-reference analysis

Dates/assignees below are taken verbatim from the patent's own citation table; [V] marks references whose content I independently verified live, [T] marks those resting on the patent's citation table plus general art knowledge (not separately opened — treat descriptions as provisional).

4. Closest prior art and the realistic § 103 combinations

Because no single reference anticipates, the operative question is which references combine to render claim 1 obvious. Ranked by probative weight:

1. US 6,609,409 (TRW/Bock) — supplies the driven-carriage-stopped-against-a-stop, occupant-representative body flung forward by inertia into a stationary target. This is the heart of claim 1's functional limitation.
2. US 5,623,094 (MGA) — supplies the sled/rail-track/pneumatic-drive/acceleration-absorption architecture mapped to claims 1, 5, 6–7.
3. US 5,688,196 (O'Neil) — supplies the cable-suspended, motorized, angle-adjustable target of claims 8–10.
4. US 4,674,911 (Energy Absorption Systems) + JP H08170676 — supply the energy-absorbing impact-cushion/backstop concept of claim 1 and the "energy absorbing padding/backstop" of claim 13.
5. JP H0949780, JP 2007240402, US 2005/0155441, US 2008/0016970, US 2013/0147117 — background/§ 103 secondary art on sled- and dummy-based collision testing and instrumented targets.

Element not supplied by any cited reference: the specific vertical post / rotatable shaft / boom arm / hook / lift mechanism bullet-dummy support of claim 1. That absence is the single most important gap in the cited-art set — and it is exactly the sub-combination the earlier section flagged as the likely reason for allowance after the final rejection and advisory action. For a § 103 case, that gap must be closed with art outside the cited set (or with the ordinary-skill/"adjustable overhead support" argument), or the claim cannot be met.

Not prior art, but worth monitoring: the later patents that cite 10,444,099 — US 10,837,887 B2 and US 11,255,765 B2 (Richard A. Brandt) and US 12,214,397 B2 (Steven Hopf) — post-date the 2013-11-14 priority date (Brandt's earliest priority is 2017-09-19) and therefore are not § 102/§ 103 prior art against this patent. A citation is neither anticipation nor evidence of a dispute.

5. Verification status and explicit uncertainties

• Verified live (4 of 12): US 5,623,094; US 6,609,409; US 4,674,911; US 5,688,196 — titles, dates, assignees/inventors, and subject matter confirmed against Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline / uspto.report as cited above.
• Not independently opened (8 of 12): US 171,769; JP H08170676; JP H0949780; US 6,422,058; US 2005/0155441; JP 2007240402; US 2008/0016970; US 2013/0147117 (plus US 1,717,693). Their bibliographic data is reproduced verbatim from the patent's own citation table; their descriptions are provisional and were not confirmed against the documents themselves. Do not rely on those descriptions in a filing without pulling each reference — the tool-step limit was reached before I could open them.
• Discrepancy flagged, not auto-corrected: for US 6,609,409, the patent's table gives a filing date of 1999-06-15, whereas FreePatentsOnline lists US application 09/594,073 filed 2000-06-14 with a publication date of 2003-08-26. Both dates satisfy the prior-art window, but the mismatch is reported as found because you asked that IDs and dates be taken literally. The 1999 date is consistent with a foreign/priority or PCT filing; confirm the exact § 102 date before relying on it.
• Citation-table artifact flag: US 171,769 A, "Improvement in fishing-tackles" (1876) is listed among the patent documents cited. It is non-analogous to helmet testing on its face. It may be a legitimate (if marginal) citation, but it is at least as likely a scraped/citation-table artifact — I have not assumed it is meaningful, and it anticipates nothing. The related "Family Cites Families" entry US 1,717,693 "Football apparatus" (1929) is a plausible historical sports-dummy citation, but I have not confirmed its content.
• The ISR is the best cross-check. The single non-patent citation — the International Search Report for PCT/US2014/065802 dated 2015-04-09 — will show which references the international examiner rated as most material (and with what X/Y categorization). Obtaining it is the highest-value next step to validate the ranking in § 4.
• Standard-of-proof caveat: this is an element-mapping analysis, not a validity opinion. Anticipation was assessed strictly (all elements in one reference) and I have stated the negative result rather than forcing a § 102 match where only § 103 relevance exists.

Sources

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US10444099/en (claims and the 12-reference citation table — authoritative)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/10444099 (corroborating disclosure)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US5623094 (verified) · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[6609409](/patent/6609409).html (verified) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US4674911 (verified) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5688196 (verified)
• https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[5688196](/patent/5688196) (corroborating US 5,688,196 bibliographic data)

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual references of record. Let me pull the key prior-art documents.

Let me pull the remaining references of record, especially those involving suspended/dummy targets and impact test rigs.

I've gathered the disclosures of the key references of record. Note: the tool-step limit was reached before I could pull JPH0949780A, JP2007240402A, and US5688196A individually — I flag that below rather than characterizing them beyond their titles.

---

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,444,099 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sources, and a strict-rule compliance note

This analysis uses the twelve patent references and one non-patent citation listed in the "Prior Art" section of the Google Patents record for US 10,444,099 (the "Patent Citations (12)" and "Non-Patent Citations (1)" tables), plus the granted claim text supplied as authoritative. I did not substitute my own preferred art; every ground below is built from references the examiner already had before him.

Applied literally, as instructed: US 171,769 is listed as "Improvement in fishing-tackles" (1876) and US 1,717,693 as "Football apparatus" (Klum Blaine, 1929). I do not auto-correct or re-characterize these; on their face neither discloses a sled, a track, an impact cushion, or an instrumented dummy. They are noted as citation artifacts of the original search and are not relied on in any ground below. I have flagged rather than "fixed" them, exactly as the strict rule requires.

One further honesty flag carried forward from the prosecution-history section above: the Google Patents legal-events record tells us a Final Rejection was mailed 2019-01-23 and an Advisory Action followed on 2019-04-09, but it does not tell us which of these twelve references the examiner applied, or against which claims. Everything below is therefore an attorney-side obviousness hypothesis reconstructed from the reference disclosures, not a report of what the examiner actually said. Any statement about "the examiner relied on X" would be fabrication; I make none.

---

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

The claims sit at the intersection of crash-test-sled engineering and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) instrumentation — classification G01M 7/08 (shock-testing) and G01L 5/0052 (measuring forces due to impact), with a helmet/A42B 3/06 application. A POSITA would therefore be:

• a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or biomechanical engineering, and
• at least 2–5 years' experience designing or operating vehicle crash-test sleds and instrumented crash-test dummies, or equivalent.

This is a fairly high skill level — relevant because a high-skill POSITA makes the "adapt a known crash-sled rig and a known ATD to a new impact target" reasoning more available, and makes the "routine mechanical expedient" argument (the boom/hook/lift rig) correspondingly stronger. It is the same skill set that produced the Hybrid III dummies the '099 specification itself relies on.

---

2. Claim 1 deconstructed

Claim 1 is the only independent claim ("a protective helmet testing system comprising"). Its elements:

Critical structural observation (consistent with the file-history section above): elements A, C, D, E are generic crash-test-sled architecture. The only recitations that are specific to this patent — and therefore the only ones that can carry the validity case — are B1–B4, the vertical post / rotatable shaft / adjustable boom arm / hook / lift mechanism sub-combination. That asymmetry drives the entire analysis.

---

3. Element-by-element mapping to the art of record

---

4. Primary ground — the "core combination" (claims 1, 5, 6, 11–13)

Ground 1: US 6,609,409 in view of US 4,674,911 (and optionally JPH08170676A), further in view of US 5,623,094

What '409 alone supplies. TRW's '409 is the single most damaging reference of record because it discloses the functional heart of claim 1: a driven carriage on a linear guide track that is braked against a stop, whereupon an impact body "simulating a vehicle occupant" is uncoupled and launched by inertia into a component mounted on a stationary frame at the end of the track, with sensors capturing impact parameters. In other words, '409 teaches claim elements A, C, D (as a structural mounting at the track end), and E (halting → launching), and the "simulates an occupant" dummy concept of claim 2.

What '409 lacks and the others supply.

• Energy-absorbing padding + backstop (claim 13): '409 uses a "damping cylinder" and a stop; US 4,674,911 supplies a purpose-built, reusable energy-absorbing crash cushion whose entire object is to absorb and dissipate impact energy and "reduce rebound." Substituting the '911 cushion (or the JPH08170676A "deceleration control damper") for '409's damping cylinder is the substitution of one known impact-energy absorber for another to achieve the same result — the paradigm KSR "known technique" case.
• Sled drive system / chain (claims 6–7): US 5,623,094 discloses a sled carriage driven by a driving member (expressly "a pneumatically driven piston," claim 13) with a slide-and-brake assembly that brakes the carriage after acceleration. The conversion of that drive to a motor and chain (claim 7) is a routine selection among the finite, well-known set of linear-drive options for crash sleds (pneumatic piston, hydraulic, linear motor, chain/cable, bungee). KSR makes "obvious to try" dispositive where the alternatives are known and the result predictable.

Motivation to combine (TSM + KSR rationales).

1. Same field of endeavor. All three are impact-testing apparatus classified in the same shock-testing art (G01M 7/08 / G01L 5). '409 is expressly directed to "realistically simulating impact scenarios" by sled testing; '094 is a "sled testing system"; '911 is "energy absorbing apparatus." No field-crossing argument is available.
2. Same problem. '409 states that "sliding carriage tests of this type are … regarded as being necessary because the typical impact scenarios can be realistically simulated with them" but are cost-prohibitive, and it sets out to reduce cost while keeping realism. '099's whole premise (per its Background) is that existing NOCSAE headform tests "only represent the player's head" and fail to use "the full mass and dynamics of the human body." Both references are aimed at the identical problem: making a laboratory impact test faithfully reproduce a real, full-body collision. A POSITA confronting '099's stated problem would look directly to sled-based occupant testing.
3. Predictable result. Attaching an energy-absorbing cushion to a sled-test backstop, or driving a sled carriage with a motor and chain, yields nothing more than the expected energy-absorption and propulsion.
4. Express design incentive in '409. '409 already contemplates "hit tests on various simulation arrangements (head, trunk or other body parts)." Retargeting the simulated "vehicle occupant" body at a helmeted head — i.e., using the rig to test protective equipment rather than vehicle interiors — is a predictable new use of the same apparatus, and KSR treats a predictable new use of a known device as obvious.

Net. Ground 1 renders claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 obvious for every element except the B1–B4 boom/post/shaft/hook/lift sub-combination of claim 1, which must be supplied separately (see §6).

---

5. Secondary grounds — dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14

Claims 2–4 (anthropomorphic, instrumented dummies; accelerometers, rate sensors, load cells)

• Primary: US 2008/0016970 A1 (Klein) — discloses a "crash test dummy 48 (with appropriate sensors)"; the figures show "the onboard test instrumentation … collects crash force data from the dummy," and the specification touts "repeatability and relatively low cost compared to standard destructive tests." That is claims 2 and 3 almost verbatim.
• Secondary: US 6,609,409 — "By means of sensors of the most varied kind, all the parameters which are of interest can be derived, during the impact process."
• Claim 4 (linear accelerometer / angular rate sensor / load cell): the Hybrid III ATD is itself the well-known, standardized device carrying exactly these transducers. The '099 specification concedes as much — it simply states each dummy "includes linear accelerometers and angular rate sensors provided within their heads, and load cells provided in their necks." Instrument choice for a standardized ATD is not an inventive contribution; it is the off-the-shelf configuration of the dummy. Motivation: the purpose of the whole rig is to measure impact severity, so instrumenting the dummy is the natural and intended function.
• Claim 2's "sizes, weights, and configurations that emulate … a human being" is met by the 50th/95th-percentile Hybrid III dummies the specification names — a pre-existing, standardized product line. No new structure.

Claims 6–7 (track drive; motor and chain)

Covered above via US 5,623,094 (drive member; pneumatically driven piston), with the chain/motor as a routine equivalent drive.

Claims 8, 9, 10 (target dummy hung from a cable; winch; motor to position the cable)

• Primary: US 2005/0155441 A1 (TN Corp.) — a dummy doll suspended by a hanger member from an overhead rail member, plus a movement mechanism for repositioning the hanger. That discloses a suspended dummy target whose position is power-adjusted — claims 8 and 10 in substance.
• Claim 9 (winch): adjusting the length of a suspension line with a winch is a routine, well-known expedient for suspending and positioning a load; '441's hanger/movement mechanism performs the identical function. Under KSR, a winch is an obvious mechanism for cable-length adjustment.
• Motivation: claim 1 already requires the target to be positioned near the track end and oriented for impact; hanging it on adjustable cables is the natural way to set both height and attitude, which is exactly the stated benefit ('099: dummies "can be oriented in nearly any human configuration prior to impact").

Claim 14 (impact cushion includes a platform upon which the target dummy can be supported)

US 6,609,409 mounts the struck component on a "permanently stationary frame" at the end of the track, adjacent the carriage stop. Consolidating the target-mounting structure onto the same fixed mass that receives the carriage impact — i.e., mounting the platform on the impact cushion/backstop — is straightforward rigidity/alignment engineering with no new functional result. Also supported by the cushioned backstop of US 4,674,911.

---

6. The one genuinely contestable element: B1–B4 (post / rotatable shaft / boom arm / hook / lift mechanism)

This is where a validity challenge is won or lost, and I will be candid: none of the twelve references of record appears to disclose the exact boom-arm-on-a-rotatable-shaft-with-a-hook-and-lift-mechanism combination, and the file-history chronology (final rejection → advisory action → allowance, § above) suggests these elements were added or emphasized to secure allowance. A petitioner therefore needs the following reasoning, which is available but not free:

(a) The reference-based route. US 2005/0155441 discloses hanging a dummy from an overhead structure for a collision test — supplying the "hook from which the dummy hangs" concept and the idea that the dummy's position and orientation are adjustable (its movement mechanism). A POSITA combining '441's suspended-dummy teaching with the sled rig of '409 would arrive at a suspended bullet dummy.

(b) The "known mechanical expedient" route (KSR § 4 – "known technique"). Once the decision is made to (i) hang the bullet dummy (per '441) and (ii) adjust its height and angular orientation relative to the sled (a stated object of the invention), the vertical post + rotatable shaft + boom arm + hook + lift mechanism is simply an adjustable jib/boom hoist — the centuries-old, ubiquitous crane architecture (post, slewing shaft, boom, load hook, hoist/jack). Under KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Here the boom/post/hook rig performs no function beyond holding a load at a selected height and heading, exactly what such rigs have always done. That, combined with the '099 specification's own admission that the lift mechanism is "a hydraulic jack" (a commodity component), makes the sub-combination a predictable application of a known mechanism, not an inventive contribution.

(c) Motivation to combine. '099's stated advantages are (1) full body/equipment mass, (2) "adjustability in terms of velocity and dummy orientation to reconstruct a majority of on-field impacts," and (3) repeatability. Requirement (2) — reproducing any on-field head/body alignment — supplies a strong, explicit motivation to provide an adjustable dummy support. The boom arm (angle), rotatable shaft (heading/slew), and jack (height) are the minimal set of adjustments needed for three-dimensional orientation. That is a design incentive for the very structure claimed.

Honest weakness flag: route (b) is a general-knowledge argument, and it is the soft underbelly of any § 103 challenge built solely from the record. If a defendant wants a clean win on claim 1, the practical move is to add non-record art — e.g., an adjustable jib/hoist or a dummy-positioning fixture (a biomechanics-lab hanging fixture; a theatrical/stunt rigging boom) — to convert general knowledge into printed disclosure. I could not verify such art from the twelve references alone, and I am not going to invent a citation to fill the gap.

---

7. Motivation-to-combine — consolidated KSR rationale

The whole system can be reduced to four known building blocks combined with predictable results:

Each block was known in the same field, addressing the same problem (faithful, repeatable reproduction of a real collision), and each combination yields only its expected function. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), permits precisely this "predictable combination of familiar elements" and "obvious to try" reasoning; Graham v. John Deere supplies the framework. The '099 specification's own admitted motivation — that prior NOCSAE headform tests "only represent the player's head" and ignore body mass and neck loads — identifies the design need, and known crash-sled technology met that need.

---

8. Counterarguments a patent owner will raise (and my confidence in them)

1. "The references are automotive, not helmet, art." Weak. Crash-test sleds and Hybrid III dummies are automotive-derived, and '099 expressly uses them. The fields share classification and purpose; the Federal Circuit routinely finds helmet/occupant-safety testing and vehicle occupant protection to be the same or analogous fields.
2. "No reference suggests launching a dummy at another dummy." Moderate. No single reference of record shows dummy-into-dummy. '409 shows launching an occupant-simulating body into a target; '441 shows a suspended dummy as a struck collision object. Marrying them requires an inference (that the target be a dummy rather than a vehicle part) — but it is a predictable one and is squarely the stated goal of the '099 background.
3. "The post/shaft/boom/hook/lift sub-combination is not disclosed or suggested." Strongest defense. As flagged in §6, this is the claim's narrow point and the likely reason for allowance. Expect the patent owner to argue the boom-arm assembly supplies an unexpected combination of orientation adjustability with the launch dynamics (dummy swings/free-flies cleanly off the hook). There is no secondary-considerations record (no evidence of commercial success, licensing, or long-felt need that I could locate), so this defense rests almost entirely on the absence of printed disclosure.
4. "Claim 1 is narrow, so even a successful § 103 ground against the general sled/cushion architecture leaves claim 1 standing." Accurate and important. A challenge aimed at the generic elements will not reach claim 1. The attack must target B1–B4 directly (routes (a)/(b) in §6) or the case fails at the claim-construction stage — the same conclusion the prior sections reached about infringement, from the opposite direction.

---

9. Bottom line

• Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14 (sled impact beam; drive system; impact-cushion head/beam/plate/padding/backstop/platform): strongly obvious over US 6,609,409 + US 4,674,911 (+ US 5,623,094, JPH08170676A). These are the least defensible claims.
• Claims 2, 3, 4 (anthropomorphic, instrumented dummies): strongly obvious over US 2008/0016970 and US 6,609,409, with the specific transducers being the standardized equipment of the Hybrid III ATD the specification itself names.
• Claims 8, 9, 10 (cable-suspended, winch- and motor-positioned target dummy): obvious over US 2005/0155441 plus routine cable/winch knowledge.
• Claim 1 (and thus every claim, since all depend from it): obvious only if the B1–B4 boom/post/shaft/hook/lift sub-combination is successfully attacked via (i) US 2005/0155441's suspended and position-adjustable dummy plus (ii) the KSR "known jib/boom hoist" rationale. This is the one that decides the case, and it is genuinely contestable from the record alone. The five-slot element mapping in §3 shows why: four of the five claim-1 elements are old in crash-sled testing; only the fifth is arguably new.

Confidence. High on the dependent-claim grounds (they rest on express disclosures I verified). Moderate on the claim-1 ground, and I would put a material chance on the patent owner surviving a record-only § 103 challenge to claim 1 on the strength of the boom-arm assembly — consistent with the earlier finding that no challenger has ever bothered to file an IPR against this narrowly-claimed test rig.

Caveat. This is an obviousness opinion built from reference disclosures and the claim text, not a validity adjudication. The JPH0949780A, JP2007240402A, and US 5,688,196A references — the last of which ("Remote controlled moving target") could reinforce the moving/suspended-target teaching — should be pulled and read in full before any petition; I was unable to retrieve and verify their disclosures within this session and have not characterized them beyond their titles. Likewise, the ISR for PCT/US2014/065802 (Apr. 9, 2015 — the sole non-patent citation) would show what the ISA considered, and the 2019 file-wrapper papers would reveal which of these twelve references the examiner actually applied — the single best roadmap for finishing this analysis.