Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9516909 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

An invention is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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). This analysis typically involves considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and any secondary considerations of non-obviousness (though secondary considerations are not part of this specific task). A motivation to combine prior art references must be identified, which can come from the references themselves, the knowledge of a PHOSITA, or the nature of the problem to be solved.

The US9516909 patent aims to address the neurological damage caused by rotational and shear forces, which existing protective gear often fails to sufficiently mitigate, often focusing primarily on direct impact. The solution presented in US9516909 involves multiple shell layers connected by energy and impact transformer layers that flexibly allow the shells to move and slide relative to one another.

We will analyze the obviousness of Independent Claims 1 and 12, as these define the broadest scope of the invention.

Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 describes a helmet comprising:

1. an outer protective shell;
2. an inner protective shell;
3. a first energy transformer layer associated with a shear mechanism, the first energy transformer layer residing between the outer protective shell and the inner protective shell, wherein the shear mechanism allows the outer protective shell to slide relative to the inner protective shell;
4. a liner layer connected to the inner protective shell, the liner layer configured to reside between the inner protective shell and a human head;
5. a chin strap attached to the inner protective shell, the chin strap and the liner layer configured to secure the inner protective shell to the human head while the outer protective shell is allowed to slide relative to the inner protective shell.

Obviousness Combination 1: WO2011087435A1 (Mips Ab) in view of US5713082A (A.V.E.)

• WO2011087435A1 (Mips Ab) / SE1050905A1 (Mips Ab): These references describe "intermediate layers of friction-reducing material" or "friction decreasing material" designed to allow relative movement between helmet components to reduce rotational forces. This directly provides the "first energy transformer layer associated with a shear mechanism" that "allows the outer protective shell to slide relative to the inner protective shell" as recited in claim 1. The MIPS technology is specifically designed to manage rotational energy by enabling relative motion between different layers within a helmet.

• US5713082A (A.V.E.): This patent describes a general "sports helmet." A PHOSITA would understand that a conventional sports helmet, such as that described by A.V.E., includes an outer protective shell, an inner protective shell (or padding that functions as such), a liner layer designed to reside between the helmet and a human head, and a chin strap to secure the helmet to the head. These are standard components in almost any protective helmet.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, faced with the long-recognized problem of mitigating rotational and shear forces in head impacts to prevent neurological injury (a problem highlighted in the '909 patent itself), would have been motivated to combine the known benefits of friction-reducing, slip-plane technology (as taught by Mips Ab) with a conventional helmet structure (as taught by A.V.E.). The MIPS reference specifically addresses the reduction of rotational acceleration through relative movement, which is the core innovative aspect claimed in US9516909. Incorporating such an intermediate layer into a standard multi-component helmet would be a straightforward engineering choice to enhance protection against these specific types of forces without altering the fundamental securing mechanism of the helmet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the shear mechanism allowing relative sliding, as taught by MIPS, into a helmet design that already incorporates outer and inner shells, a liner layer, and a chin strap.

  This combination would result in a helmet having:

  1. An outer protective shell (from A.V.E. or general helmet design).
  2. An inner protective shell (from A.V.E. or general helmet design).
  3. A first energy transformer layer with a shear mechanism allowing relative sliding between the shells (from Mips Ab).
  4. A liner layer connected to the inner protective shell, residing between it and the head (from A.V.E. or general helmet design).
  5. A chin strap attached to the inner protective shell, securing the inner shell and liner to the head while allowing outer shell movement (from A.V.E. or general helmet design).

  Thus, claims 1-5 of US9516909 would have been obvious.

Obviousness Combination 2: US7076811B2 (Puchalski) in view of US3946441A (Johnson)

• US7076811B2 (Puchalski): This patent describes a "protective head covering" where "the shell consists of three (or more) discrete panels that are physically and firmly coupled together providing rigid protection under most circumstances, but upon impact the panels move relative to one another, but not relative to the user's head, thereby permitting impact forces to be dissipated and/or redirected away from the cranium and brain within." This explicitly teaches the concept of multiple protective shells/layers with relative movement between them to form an "impact absorbing crumple or shear zone." This directly teaches the "outer protective shell," the "inner protective shell" (implied by panels moving relative to protect the brain within), and the "first energy transformer layer associated with a shear mechanism...wherein the shear mechanism allows the outer protective shell to slide relative to the inner protective shell."

• US3946441A (Johnson): This patent describes a general "safety helmet." A safety helmet, as understood by a PHOSITA, necessarily includes an outer protective shell, an inner protective shell or liner, a liner layer designed to interface with the user's head, and a chin strap for securing the helmet.

• Motivation to Combine: Puchalski clearly teaches a mechanism for dissipating impact forces and creating a "shear zone" by allowing relative movement of helmet panels, specifically to protect the cranium and brain. A PHOSITA, seeking to build a complete and functional helmet with enhanced protection against rotational and shear forces, would find it obvious to integrate Puchalski's innovative shell structure into a complete helmet system. This would involve adding conventional elements such as a liner layer to provide comfort and fit between the innermost protective layer and the head, and a chin strap to securely fasten the helmet, as taught by Johnson or any other general helmet reference. The motivation is to provide a comprehensive helmet that leverages Puchalski's shear force dissipation while providing standard comfort and securing features.

  This combination would result in a helmet having all the elements of claim 1, including the outer and inner shells, the shear mechanism allowing relative sliding (from Puchalski), and the liner and chin strap for securing the inner shell/layer to the head (from Johnson or general helmet art). Thus, claims 1-5 of US9516909 would have been obvious.

Independent Claim 12

Claim 12 is very similar to Claim 1, using the broader terms "outer protective layer" and "inner protective layer" instead of "shell." The only notable difference is that it states the liner layer is configured to reside between the inner protective layer and "a portion of a human body," but then specifies that the chin strap and liner secure the inner protective layer to the "human head." In the context of a helmet, a "portion of a human body" would naturally be the human head. This slight linguistic variation does not alter the core inventive concept or the obviousness analysis.

The same combinations and motivations for obviousness as described for Independent Claim 1 apply directly to Independent Claim 12:

Obviousness Combination 1: WO2011087435A1 (Mips Ab) in view of US5713082A (A.V.E.)

• Application to Claim 12: WO2011087435A1 teaches the intermediate layer for friction reduction and relative movement (the "first energy transformer layer associated with a shear mechanism," allowing sliding between protective layers). US5713082A teaches the outer protective layer, inner protective layer, a liner layer configured for a human head (which is a "portion of a human body"), and a chin strap for securing the helmet to the human head.
• Motivation: The motivation remains the same: to improve a standard helmet's protection against rotational and shear forces by incorporating a known mechanism for enabling relative movement between layers, as taught by Mips Ab.

Obviousness Combination 2: US7076811B2 (Puchalski) in view of US3946441A (Johnson)

• Application to Claim 12: US7076811B2 teaches the multi-panel shell structure with relative movement to create a shear zone, effectively acting as outer and inner protective layers with a shear mechanism between them. US3946441A teaches the conventional helmet elements including outer/inner protective layers, a liner layer, and a chin strap to secure the helmet to the human head.
• Motivation: The motivation remains the same: to integrate Puchalski's advanced shear force dissipation into a complete helmet system with standard securing features to provide comprehensive protection against various impact forces.

In summary, the core concept of a helmet with outer and inner protective layers/shells separated by a shear mechanism that allows relative sliding to mitigate rotational and shear forces was well-known in the prior art before the priority date of US9516909, as evidenced by references such as WO2011087435A1 (Mips Ab) and US7076811B2 (Puchalski). Combining these specific shear-reducing mechanisms with otherwise conventional helmet features (outer/inner layers, liner, chin strap) from general helmet prior art would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to improve helmet safety against rotational and shear forces.