US 10716352

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number.

Let me check for CAFC/litigation activity and confirm assignee details.

Let me retrieve the actual claim text.

US Patent 10,716,352 — Summary

Bottom line up front: I confirmed this patent's bibliographic data and specification/abstract from authoritative sources (the granted-patent PDF and Google Patents). I could not retrieve the verbatim text of the 21 claims from the sources available to me, so the claim overview below is derived from the patent's own "Summary of the Invention" and specification. Treat the claim-level detail as high-confidence-in-substance but unverified-as-to-exact-wording. On CAFC: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket involving this patent; the related enforcement activity was in district court (see below).

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

The application is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 15/631,713 (filed Jun. 23, 2017, since abandoned), which itself descends through a long chain of continuations from Ser. No. 13/554,471 (now US 8,863,319) claiming benefit of provisional 61/510,401.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A helmet detects shear force impacts. Indicator elements in the helmet or protective gear provides a visual indication, an audio indication, or a combination is contained in the surface of the outer shell of the helmet and detects when there is a mechanical force imparted on the helmet. One or more sensors are embedded in the helmet and detect when a shear force is imparted on the helmet. In other embodiments, the sensors can detect that there was a mechanical force on the helmet and also measure the energy of the force. The outer surface of the helmet may have a lining that changes appearance with a shear impact force hits the surface of the helmet."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The specification's Summary recites two distinct inventive aspects, which correspond to the independent claims (independent claim numbering — e.g., claim 1 and a later independent claim — could not be verified verbatim):

Aspect 1 — Sensor-driven active indicator (likely independent claim 1).

• Structure: A helmet (or other protective gear) with a first protective layer and a second protective layer, joined by an "energy and impact transformer" layer.
• Function of the transformer: It absorbs energy from shear forces imparted on the first (outer) layer and permits the first layer to slide relative to the second layer.
• Sensing: A shear force sensor detects a shear impact (or another mechanical impact) on the first layer.
• Output: A shear-force indicator component, in communication with the sensor (wired or wireless), is activated when the sensor detects an impact. In practice this is an LED/light, a buzzer, or a speaker — giving a visual and/or audible alert either to the wearer, to bystanders, or both.
• Optional/embodied refinements: The indicator can latch on until manually reset or auto-extinguish after a short duration; the sensor may also measure the magnitude of the impact, with the indicator (e.g., number or color of LEDs — yellow/green/red) signaling low/medium/high force.

Aspect 2 — Passive, material-based visual indicator.

• A helmet with a first protective layer having outside and inside surfaces, and a second protective layer connected by an energy transformer layer that allows the first layer to slide relative to the second.
• An impact-sensing material with a first visual appearance sits on the outside surface of the first layer and changes to a second visual appearance when struck by a shear force.
• The appearance change may be localized at the impact point or may affect the entire surface. Disclosed materials include polymer opals, mechanochromic ("CAM") and encryption-mechanochromic (EM) materials, photonic band-gap Bragg fibers/photonic textiles, and structural-color materials (conjugated/chromatic polymers, stretchable PDA composite fibers).

Shared underpinnings: The claim families rely on the multi-shell architecture (outer/middle/inner shells with energy-and-impact-transformer layers between them, e.g., conical/truss structures, concertinaed structures, ball-bearing layers, V-shaped flexible connectors, electro-/magneto-rheological fluids, gels/foams). Notably, the specification states that where sensors are attached to deformable connecting structures, the sensor "does not have to be a shear force sensor" — any sensor detecting a minor structural change (e.g., micro-compression) suffices.

Related enforcement activity (district court, not CAFC)

• Brainguard Technologies, Inc. v. Revelyst Sales LLC et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 8:24-cv-2652-JWH-ADS (filed 2024). Defendants included Vista Outdoor entities and Revelyst; the accused products were Bell/Giro/Fox helmets incorporating Mips rotational-force technology.
• The complaint in that action asserted a family of Brainguard patents (referred to in the filings as the '909, '635, '536, and '561 patents, among a set described by Mips as five patents) and attacked claim definiteness/means-plus-function issues — I could not confirm from the retrieved materials that the '352 patent itself was among the asserted patents. Flagging this as uncertain.
• The parties settled (Mips public disclosure dated July 2, 2026; Brainguard press release July 17, 2026), with Mips paying US$3.25 million and Revelyst/Mips receiving a non-exclusive, non-transferable license. No admission of liability or infringement.
• No Federal Circuit 2026 docket referencing 10,716,352 was found in my searches. The CAFC 2026 material that surfaced (e.g., US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2024-1520, decided Jan. 22, 2026) is unrelated to this patent and was not treated as responsive.

Uncertainty flags

1. Verbatim claim language not verified. I did not obtain an authoritative copy of claims 1–21. The overview above tracks the patent's Summary of the Invention; exact claim boundaries, dependencies, and the precise wording of any method claims should be confirmed against the granted patent (e.g., USPTO PatentCenter / the USPTO full-text image) before being relied upon.
2. Date-of-record discrepancy. Your prompt states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the litigation/settlement items above are dated July–August 2026. I have reported the dates exactly as the sources show them and have not reconciled the discrepancy.
3. Assignee/address variants for Brainguard Technologies, Inc. appear across sources (Richmond, CA vs. El Cerrito, CA). Both are reproduced above without correction.

Key sources: granted patent PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3f/b7/94/c49690165c6e79/US10716352.pdf); Google Patents page for US10716352B2; Justia patent/assignee pages; Mips AB disclosure of July 2, 2026; Brainguard press release of July 17, 2026; district-court complaint excerpts (PTACTS artifact).

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,716,352. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search more specifically for the assignee and related litigation.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case and confirm whether the '352 patent was asserted.

Litigation Search: US Patent 10,716,352

Bottom line

I found no litigation that specifically asserts US Patent 10,716,352. Based on my searches of patent-litigation sources, this particular patent does not appear to have been pleaded as an asserted patent in any case. I want to be explicit about that rather than stretch a related case to fit the question.

However, the patent is a member of the BrainGuard Technologies "Biomechanics Aware" family, and sibling patents in that same family were litigated in a well-documented 2024–2026 case. That case is the closest relevant matter and is described below. I flag clearly that the '352 patent itself was not among the patents-in-suit there.

Related litigation (same family — '352 NOT asserted)

BrainGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Vista Outdoor Inc., et al.

Key point for your question: The Complaint attached five exhibits, one per asserted patent (Exhibit A = 8,863,319; B = 9,060,561; C = 9,271,536; D = 9,414,635; E = 9,516,909). US 10,716,352 is not on that list. Confirming this, Revelyst's own IPR papers state that Patent Owner "has asserted five patents" in the -652 Action, and the invalidity contentions identify the patents as the '319, '561, '536, '635, and '909 patents. So the '352 patent was not part of the asserted set.

Settlement details:

• Announced July 2, 2026 by Mips AB (Nasdaq/Stockholm release). Mips, supporting its customer, agreed to resolve the case; Mips to pay USD 3,25 million, with a negative impact on adjusted operating profit in Q3 2026.
• BrainGuard's own July 17, 2026 press release states Mips/Revelyst agreed to pay $3.2 million and received a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to the patented technology.
• Settling parties: Mips AB together with its customer Bushnell Holdings LLC, as successor by merger to Revelyst Sales LLC. The settlement stops all litigation, releases all claims, and bars future claims based on the asserted patents against Mips and its customers. No admission of liability or infringement.
• All patents asserted were the family's earlier-issued members; the '352 patent (issued 2020-07-21) was not among them.

Related PTAB proceedings (also NOT on the '352 patent)

Revelyst Sales LLC filed a wave of inter partes review petitions against the BrainGuard family in 2025:

• IPR2025-01030 — U.S. Patent No. 9,060,561
• IPR2025-01031 — U.S. Patent No. 9,271,536
• IPR2025-01032 — challenger's brief referencing the parallel -652 Action

Real parties-in-interest named in these petitions: Revelyst Sales LLC, Olibre LLC, Revelyst, Inc., Strategic Value Partners, LLC, Bell Sports, Inc., Fox Head, Inc., and Mips AB. Patent Owner raised Fintiv-style discretionary-denial arguments based on the co-pending C.D. Cal. action. Again, these petitions target sibling patents (e.g., '561, '536), not US 10,716,352.

Verification notes and limitations

1. No direct hit on the '352 patent. My searches (patent-litigation coverage, press releases, PTAB filings, and case-summary aggregators) returned no case in which US 10,716,352 is named as an asserted patent. The recurring "10716352" hits were simply the Google Patents page for the patent itself.
2. I was unable to run a direct PACER or Unified Patents litigation-database query in this session, so I cannot rule out a low-profile or very recent filing. If you need a definitive negative, a PACER docket search and the Unified Patents litigation portal filtered on 10716352 are the authoritative checks.
3. Identifier caution (per your instruction): I have not "corrected" any number. Where sources reference sibling patents (8,863,319 / 9,060,561 / 9,271,536 / 9,414,635 / 9,516,909) I report them literally as given; they are different patents from US 10,716,352 and should not be treated as the subject of your query.
4. The €$ figures differ slightly between the Mips release (USD 3.25M) and the BrainGuard press release (USD 3.2M) — I have reported both as stated rather than reconciling them.

If your interest is the BrainGuard family generally: the operative enforcement matter is BrainGuard Techs., Inc. v. Vista Outdoor Inc., 8:24-cv-2652-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), settled mid-2026 for ~$3.2–3.25M with a license. If your interest is strictly US 10,716,352: no litigation is known to me at this time.

Proceedings overview

Zero. As of 2026-09-30, there are no AIA trial proceedings of any type — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM — on file against US 10,716,352 (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). The canonical structured block ("PTAB proceedings on file") returns an empty set, and my independent searches confirm that: the entire Brainguard PTAB footprint consists of five IPRs directed at five sibling patents in the same family — none of them the '352 (see the family-context section below for why that cluster still matters to you).

Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened." It is the opposite — the '352 is PTAB-virgin and completely untested, and because no IPR was ever instituted on it (or on its siblings), no § 315(e)(2) estoppel is running against anyone on any art. A defendant receiving a demand letter citing the '352 today keeps the full IPR toolkit, unencumbered. The absence is itself a signal worth weighing: Brainguard has asserted its family aggressively in district court since 2024, and the accused infringer (Revelyst/Mips) chose to attack five family patents at the PTAB — but pointedly not the '352. Whether that is because the '352 was not asserted, because its sensor/indicator claims were thought weaker or stronger, or simply because of claim-selection strategy, cannot be determined from the public record.

Proceedings on US 10,716,352

None — no proceeding number exists to report

There is no AIA trial number to give you, and I will not construct one. I searched for IPR/PGR activity naming either the patent number (10,716,352 / 10716352) or its application number (15/784,486) and found nothing at the Board. The USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty, which is consistent.

Defensive value of the vacancy: in a case with no prior PTAB challenge, you are not boxed in by any earlier petitioner's choices. You may raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, against any claim, over any reference (subject only to § 325(d) discretion if the art was already before the examiner, and § 315(b)'s one-year clock from service of a complaint on you). You are also free of the theoretical risk that a prior petitioner's instituted-and-FWD'd art was already litigated to a judgment.

Family-context: the five sibling IPRs (Revelyst/Mips v. Brainguard) — not proceedings against the '352

These are worth laying out because they are the only PTAB activity in this family, and a defendant's first instinct — "somebody already IPR'd this family, what did I inherit?" — deserves a precise answer: you inherited nothing. All five were denied at the institution stage, so none produced a Final Written Decision, none canceled a claim, and none created estoppel.

All five were filed 2025-07-09 by Revelyst Sales LLC, each with institution denied on 2025-11-20 on discretionary grounds (§ 314(a)), and each terminated with a post-institution fee refund requested 2025-12-16 and approved 2025-12-18.

Common facts across the cluster (all confirmed from filings):

• Petitioner: Revelyst Sales LLC. Named real parties-in-interest: Revelyst Sales LLC, Olibre LLC, Revelyst, Inc., Strategic Value Partners, LLC, Bell Sports, Inc., Fox Head, Inc., and Mips AB.
• Petitioner counsel: David Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476), with Heather Petruzzi, Patrick Nyman, Amy Wigmore, Joshua Stern (WilmerHale). Patent Owner counsel: David Schumann.
• Expert: Dr. Stefan M. Duma (Virginia Tech).
• Asserted prior art across the petitions: US 2012/0198604 (Weber), WO 01/45526 (Von Holst), WO 2011/139224 (Halldin), US 2013/0122256 (Kleiven), US 2004/0250340 (Piper), US 2004/0117896 (Madey), plus Dotsuko. Grounds were § 102 anticipation and § 103 obviousness.
• Central merits theory (Petitioner's own words): "The Office rejected similar claims five times in a family prosecution, but failed to issue even a single prior art rejection in prosecution of the Challenged Patent" — i.e., a § 325(d)/material-error argument that the examiner overlooked Von Holst and that sibling-application examiners had repeatedly rejected materially similar claims. This is the argument a future petitioner would be tempted to recycle against the '352.
• Patent Owner's winning theory: discretionary denial — Fintiv (co-pending C.D. Cal. litigation, PO's prediction that trial would precede the FWD, overlapping issues) plus the Director's 2025-03-26 "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management" factors, notably settled expectations (claims in force ~9 years, never previously challenged) and over-reliance on expert testimony. Petitioners opposed, expressly reserving APA/due-process challenges to the "settled expectations" rule, and argued the district court (Judge Holcomb) would grant a post-institution stay.
• No FWD was ever issued in any of the five; no claim was canceled or sustained; there was no appeal. Appeals from § 314(a) denials are unavailable under § 314(d); only mandamus would lie, and I found no mandamus petition in this family.

Related district court and resolution (context): BrainGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Revelyst Sales LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02652-JWH-ADS — filed 2024-12-06, C.D. Cal. (not N.D. Cal.; see correction below) — asserting five Brainguard patents against Revelyst/Mips-related helmet products (Bell/Giro/Fox with Mips rotational technology). The '319-related claims were dismissed by stipulation (D.I. 55, 2025-10-02). The dispute settled: Mips AB's public disclosure dated 2026-07-02 states Mips will pay USD 3.25 million, resolving all alleged claims with releases barring existing or future claims based on the asserted patents against Mips or any Mips customer. Because no § 314(a) denial is appealable and no FWD issued, the settlement did not disturb any PTAB outcome — there was none.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '352 — canceled / sustained / untested. Every claim of the '352 is untested. No claim has been canceled, no claim has been adjudicated patentable, and no FWD has ever addressed a single limitation. (The claim count and scope in the previously generated section — 21 claims, with independent claims corresponding to the two Summary aspects — remain unverified as to verbatim wording; I did not obtain a claim copy, and the caveat from that section carries forward unchanged.) Anyone who tells you "the '352 has been IPR-hardened" or "the '352's independent claim survived" is reporting something that did not happen.

Estoppel landscape — the good news, and its edges. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only where an IPR was instituted and reached a final written decision. The five Revelyst IPRs were never instituted, so no estoppel exists, in this family or elsewhere. On the '352 specifically there is zero estoppel: neither petitioner-side nor privy-side estoppel bars any ground, any reference, or any statutory basis. Two caveats to keep in view: (i) estoppel is patent- and claim-specific anyway, so even a hypothetical instituted sibling IPR would not have estopped grounds against the '352's distinct sensor/indicator claims; and (ii) the Revelyst/Mips settlement release runs to "the asserted patents" and to Mips and its customers — if the '352 was not among the asserted patents (which the public record does not confirm either way), a non-Mips defendant gains nothing from that release. Confirm the asserted-patent list from the C.D. Cal. docket before relying on it.

Pattern signals. (1) A single petitioner (Revelyst) filed five IPRs on this family on one day — a coordinated "file-the-whole-family" strategy, not a serial one-off. (2) The patent owner did not appeal anything — it didn't need to; it won all five at the institution stage on discretion. (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears anywhere in the chain; the only challenger is a commercial rival group. (4) The Board's discretionary-denial climate was the decisive variable: the same art that lost on 2025-11-20 might fare differently in a stand-alone petition now that the C.D. Cal. case has settled — with no co-pending litigation, the Fintiv prong disappears entirely, and the "settled expectations" prong is expressly not a categorical rule (cf. Home Depot v. H2 Intellect, IPR2025-00480, and Top Glory v. Cole Haan, IPR2025-01395). The Fintiv regime is itself under Supreme Court pressure via the pending petitions described in the amicus brief in No. 26-136 (2026-08-28), tracking Intel v. Squires, No. 26-73, and Google v. VirtaMove, No. 25-1230 — so the discretionary landscape is more volatile, not less, than when Revelyst lost.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the '352 as a clean-slate IPR target. There is nothing to distinguish, no FWD to distinguish, and no estoppel to work around. Run your own § 102/§ 103 mapping against the '352's actual claim text.
2. Verify the claim language before you invest. The prior section explicitly flagged that claims 1–21 were not verified verbatim and were reconstructed from the specification's Summary. Pull the granted patent (USPTO PatentCenter / the patentimages PDF cited in that section) and confirm independent-claim boundaries and whether any method claims exist, before you build a petition or an invalidity contention around them.
3. Exploit the CIP priority question. The '352 is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 15/631,713 (filed 2017-06-23), descending from 13/554,471 (2011-07-21 priority). Any claim limitation supported only by the 2017 CIP disclosure (the sensor/indicator and appearance-changing-material subject matter) may be entitled to a 2017, not a 2011, effective filing date. If so, the 2011–2017 window is open for prior art — a materially broader art set than the Von Holst/Halldin/Weber/Kleiven cluster the Revelyst petitions used. This is a lead, not a conclusion: it requires a limitation-by-limitation priority analysis, and I have not performed it.
4. Mind the two procedural gates. (a) § 315(b): file within one year of service of any complaint asserting the '352. (b) § 325(d): much of the obvious candidate art (notably Von Holst) was before the examiner, so expect Advanced Bionics step-two briefing — but note that Revelyst's own "material error because the examiner never substantively rejected on it" framing is now supported by designated informative decisions such as Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc., IPR2025-00464/-00465/-00466, Paper 12 (2025-07-16).
5. Watch for new filings. If Brainguard re-asserts the family — including the '352 — a fresh defendant's IPR clock starts on service. Because no litigation is currently pending on the '352, any petition you file now would not face a Fintiv discretionary denial; that window narrows the moment a new suit is filed.

Where to verify everything above:

• PTAB public information portal (petition documents, exhibit lists, discretionary-denial briefs): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/ (proceedings at petition IDs 1557929, 1557930, 1557931, 1557932, 1557933).
• PTAB E2E for the existence/absence of dockets: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ (search "10,716,352" and "15/784,486" — expect no hits).
• Case-level detail and documents for the five IPRs: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01029, /IPR2025-01030, /IPR2025-01031, /IPR2025-01032, /IPR2025-01033.
• Mips AB settlement disclosure (2026-07-02, USD 3.25M, releases): https://storage.mfn.se/c93414c7-560a-4a5b-9864-0b301aec6782/mips-ab-and-its-customer-revelyst-resolve-alleged-patent-infringement-litigation-with-brainguard-technologies-inc.pdf

Corrections and uncertainty flags

1. Venue correction to the earlier section — flagging explicitly as instructed. The previously generated section describes the case as N.D. Cal., Case No. 8:24-cv-2652-JWH-ADS. The PTAB filings repeatedly identify the parallel action as BrainGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Revelyst Sales LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02652-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.) — the "8:" Central-District-of-California Southern Division prefix is consistent with C.D. Cal., and Petitioner's briefs refer to "Judge Holcomb" and to C.D. Cal. stay statistics. I am treating the earlier "N.D. Cal." as an error, per the instruction to prefer current sources.
2. Date-of-record discrepancy resolved. The earlier section flagged that the prompt date (2026-04-26) post-dated sources it cited as July–August 2026. Today's date is given as 2026-09-30, which is consistent with the 2026-07-02 settlement disclosure. No inconsistency remains.
3. Denial reasoning is inferred from party briefing, not from the denial decision text. I hold the docket category "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" (2025-11-20) and the parties' discretionary-denial briefs, but I did not retrieve the text of the 2025-11-20 denials themselves. The specific weighting of Fintiv versus the March 2025 Interim Guidance factors is therefore my characterization of the parties' positions, not a verified quotation from the panel. Do not attribute a specific rationale to the Board without pulling Paper 14 (or equivalent) in each file.
4. Whether the '352 was among the five patents asserted in the C.D. Cal. action is still unconfirmed. Petitioner's submissions state that Patent Owner "has asserted five patents, including the '561 Patent," and that these are "a subset" — but the public excerpts I retrieved do not enumerate all five. The five challenged patents ('319, '561, '536, '635, '909) are the obvious candidates, and the '352 is absent from every IPR petition. Confirm from the complaint (D.I. 1, 2024-12-06) before assuming the '352 was never asserted.
5. Not verified: the verbatim text of claims 1–21 of the '352; the complete asserted-patent list; the settlement's confidentiality terms beyond the public Mips disclosure; and the absence of any mandamus filing challenging the five denials (I found none, but § 314(d) non-appealability makes one unlikely).

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,716,352. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and legal events.

Let me try to pin down the specific assignment record details.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,716,352. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific front-page references and citation data for this patent.

Let me retrieve the full front-page reference list from the patent PDF.

I've hit my search-step limit, so here is my analysis based on what the retrieved sources establish. I've flagged clearly where the data is OCR-derived or unverified.

Prior-Art Analysis: US 10,716,352 B2

"Visual and Audio Indicator of Shear Impact Force on Protective Gear"
Inventor: Robert T. Knight · Assignee: Brainguard Technologies, Inc. · App. No. 15/784,486 · Filed 2017-10-16 · Granted 2020-07-21 · Priority 2011-07-21.

1. Method, sourcing, and important caveats

What I could and could not do. I searched for the citation record for 10,716,352 specifically and did not substitute results for similar numbers. The richest source I could reach was the granted-patent front page (the "(56) References Cited" block) as mirrored in the patentimages/Google Patents renderings of the US 10,716,352 PDF:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3f/b7/94/c49690165c6e79/US10716352.pdf

I was not able to run a native USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR full-text query this session, and I could not retrieve the complete, clean (56) block in one shot — the snippets I recovered are OCR-garbled in several places. Where entries are obviously corrupted, I say so and do not silently "correct" the numbers (per your strict rule). Confirm every entry against the USPTO full-text image before relying on it.

Three caveats that materially limit the §102 mapping below:

1. Claim text is unverified. As flagged in my earlier summary, I could not obtain verbatim claims 1–21. The claim mapping here is therefore anchored to the two inventive aspects the patent itself recites in its Summary (sensor-driven indicator; passive impact-sensing material) — not to confirmed claim language. Treat claim numbers as provisional.
2. OCR uncertainty on the citation list (detailed below).
3. Date-of-record discrepancy (unchanged): the task states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the system context and downstream litigation items are dated later in 2026. Reported as found, not reconciled.

A structural point that governs the whole §102 analysis. Almost every reference on this patent's (56) list is a structural helmet reference (multi-layer shells, shear zones, liners). The '352 claims, by contrast, center on detection and indication (sensor + activated indicator; or a color-changing skin). A structural reference that does not disclose sensing/indicating cannot anticipate those claims under §102; it is at most §103 material. I've marked that distinction explicitly.

2. Front-page (56) U.S. Patent Documents

Recovered (OCR-derived; dates and numbers as the mirror shows them):

Foreign patent documents — I could not cleanly recover the '352 foreign list, but the sibling US 9,723,889 (same specification) lists: SE 1050905 A1 (7/2011); WO 0145256 A1 (6/2001); WO 2004032659 A1 (4/2004); WO 2011087… — treat as indicative of the family only, not verified as the '352 list.

3. References discussed in the specification (description)

The patent body expressly cites and quotes four references (these overlap items 4, 5, 9, 12/13 above):

• US 7,076,811 B2 — Puchalski (7/2006). Helmet with an impact-absorbing crumple/shear zone; three-or-more discrete shell panels rigidly coupled but able to move relative to each other on impact, dissipating/redirecting forces away from the cranium.
• US 5,815,846 A — Calonge (10/1998). Impact-resistant helmet assembly with a first material layer coupled to a second material layer defining a gas chamber, plus a containment layer defining a fluid chamber with viscous gel resisting displacement.
• US 5,956,777 A — Popovich (9/1999). Helmet with a rigid inner shell, a resilient spacing layer outside it, and an articulated shell of discrete rigid segments joined by resilient members.
• US 6,434,755 — Halstead (spec text; front page OCR shows 6,474,755). Football helmet with liner sections of different thicknesses/densities (thicker/softer sections crush first; harder sections prevent bottoming out).

4. §102 anticipation assessment

Reality check on this list: none of the references I could verify discloses the combination that the '352 independent claims require — namely (a) an outer protective layer that slides on an energy-and-impact-transformer layer, plus (b) a shear sensor, plus (c) an indicator activated on detection; or, alternatively, an impact-sensing material that changes visual appearance on the outside surface. Accordingly, most of the list is best characterized as §103 (obviousness) art, not §102 anticipatory art. I flag the few candidates that could rise to §102 if their disclosure is confirmed.

A. Structural references — candidate §103 art; §102 only if they also disclose sensing/indicating

B. Detection/indication-area references — the references that actually bear on the point of novelty

These are the entries whose subject matter (helmet sensing/signaling) potentially touches the '352 claims' core (sensor + indicator, or hazard detection):

C. The passive color-change aspect (Aspect 2)

I found no patent reference on the (56) list that anticipates the "impact-sensing material that changes visual appearance" claim. The specification's own material classes (polymer opals; mechanochromic "CAM"; encryption-mechanochromism "EM"; photonic band-gap Bragg fibers/photonic textiles; conjugated/chromatic polymers; PDA composite fibers) are literature/materials-science subject matter. Expect any §102/§103 challenge to this aspect to come from non-patent literature, not from the patent citations listed. I did not retrieve an NPL citation list for this patent, so I cannot confirm what, if anything, the examiner cited in that space — flagging as a gap.

D. Brainguard-family self-citations (items 19–27)

US 8,863,319; 9,060,561; 9,271,536; 9,289,022; 9,414,635; 9,516,909; 9,521,874; 9,723,889; 9,750,296 are the same inventor/assignee's own prior patents (the continuation chain recited in the cross-reference section). Under §102 they are not "prior art" that anticipates in the ordinary sense — they are the family members from which the '352 patent claims priority (2011-07-21 priority via 61/510,401 → 13/554,471). They supply the written-description/enablement support for the multi-shell architecture, but they are not anticipatory references against this patent. (Note: these are precisely the patents at issue in the BrainGuard v. Vista Outdoor, 8:24-cv-2652 litigation, per my earlier section — not the '352 patent.)

5. Bottom line

1. The most relevant prior art to US 10,716,352, judged against its two inventive aspects:

• For the sliding-layer/sensor/indicator combination: US 7,076,811 (Puchalski) structurally, and US 7,509,835 (Beck, A42B 3/046) for the detection/indication function — these two, in combination, are the most natural §103 attack, and Beck alone is the only plausible §102 candidate for a sensor+indicator claim (disclosure unverified).
• For the shear-sensing element: US 2008/0066217 (Depreitere) and the Naunheim reference are the on-point candidates (unverified).
• For the two-layer sliding structure: US 5,815,846 (Calonge) and US 5,956,777 (Popovich), in addition to Puchalski.

1. No single reference I could verify anticipates all elements of either independent claim. On this record the citations are predominantly §103 art, not §102 anticipatory art — subject to the two big caveats below.
2. The passive color-change claim family has no identifiable anticipatory patent citation in the recovered list; expect NPL, which I could not retrieve.

Critical caveats you must resolve before relying on any §102 conclusion:

• (i) Verbatim claims 1–21 remain unverified — the claim-by-claim §102 mapping cannot be finalized without them.
• (ii) The (56) list here is OCR-derived and partly garbled (notably Halstead 6,474,755 vs 6,434,755; Knight 8,663,319 vs 8,863,319; and several truncated 2003/2004/2006 publication numbers). Please confirm against the USPTO full-text image before citing.

Key sources: granted-patent PDF via patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3f/b7/94/c49690165c6e79/US10716352.pdf; Google Patents US10716352B2; sibling front page US9723889.pdf; Justia pages for 10716352 and 20180035740; patents-review.com rendering of US 2018/0035740 A1.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before building the § 103 analysis.

I have strong prior-art leads. Let me pin down the specific references cited on the patent's face and a few key combination candidates.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language — critical for a claim-by-claim § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,716,352 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note (building on prior sections): This analysis builds on the two previously generated sections. It does not re-state the bibliographic data, the abstract, the prosecution/assignment history, or the litigation/PTAB findings. Where relevant, I incorporate by reference the prior sections' flags — in particular, that verbatim claim text was never retrieved, so the claim charting below is keyed to the patent's own Summary of the Invention and specification rather than to confirmed claim wording.

⚠️ Contradiction flagged (carried forward): The prior "Patent summary" section noted that the prompt date (April 26, 2026) precedes events it described as occurring July–August 2026. That inconsistency is unresolved and is repeated here only so you do not treat either date as reconciled.

1. Analytical framework

1.1 Governing standard

Obviousness under § 103 is evaluated under the Graham v. John Deere factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination is obvious where the elements are known, the combination is of familiar elements according to known methods, and it yields no more than predictable results — and an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required.

1.2 Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)

For this disclosure, a POSA would be a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or materials science (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–5 years of experience designing impact-protective headgear, or a person with comparable training/experience in helmet design and embedded sensing. This is the level at which the references below would be considered combinable.

1.3 The critical priority/§ 102 question — and why it drives the whole analysis

US 10,716,352 was filed October 16, 2017 as a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 15/631,713 (filed June 23, 2017), which descends from the 2011 provisional 61/510,401 via the '319 family. Two consequences follow:

• The multi-layer "energy and impact transformer" subject matter is supported throughout the 2012–2016 family (e.g., US 8,863,319; publication US 2013/0019384 A1), so it may carry the 2011-07-21 priority date.
• The sensor/indicator/color-change subject matter is the apparent new matter that makes this a continuation-in-part. Under § 120, new matter is not entitled to the parent's filing date. Unless the sensor/indicator material is found verbatim in the '319 chain, those limitations get an effective date of no earlier than June 23, 2017 (and realistically October 16, 2017).

I could not verify the CIP boundary (which paragraphs constitute new matter). I therefore test the analysis both ways:

Crucially, Scenario B still yields a complete obviousness case (see Grounds 1B and 1C below). That makes the analysis robust to the priority question.

2. Scope and content of the prior art

The '352 face cites an unusually broad set of references, including US 6,658,671 (Von Holst) and EP 2 734 071 — i.e., the sliding-layer and MIPS art. Source: US10716352 PDF, "References Cited".

Key admission against interest: The '352 specification itself states that shear sensors are generally available and known, listing "direct dual-axis, fluid shear stress sensors and MEMS sensors that directly measure shear stress in two axes," "bi-axial, shear transducers based on strain gauges," "an optical shearing force measurement device," "flexible capacitive tactile sensor arrays for measuring shear forces using PDMS," and "a matrix-based tactile surface sensor that uses piezoresistance." It further states: "The type of shear sensor used can be left to the designer and manufacturer." Source: US10716352 PDF. This is a binding admission that shear-sensing technology was known and available — it removes any § 103 gap on the "shear force sensor" element.

3. Grounds of rejection

GROUND 1 — Aspect 1 (sensor-driven active indicator) — § 103 over Von Holst + Ford

Claim elements (per Summary of the Invention, "Aspect 1"):

1. first protective layer; 2. second protective layer; 3. connected by an energy and impact transformer layer absorbing shear energy and allowing layer 1 to slide relative to layer 2; 4. a shear force sensor detecting impact on layer 1; 5. a shear force indicator component in communication with the sensor, activated when the sensor detects an impact.

Where each element is found:

• Elements 1–3: Von Holst — outer shell 2, inner shell 3, intermediate sliding layer 4 that displaces to absorb rotational energy. Von Holst expressly describes the dissipation-of-rotational-energy function and the relative sliding — the claimed "energy and impact transformer" function (which the '319 family's own specification equates to "convert[ing] potential head rotational forces into heat or transformation energy").
• Elements 4–5: Ford — helmet shell + impact sensor + LEDs visibly on the outer surface, with electronics that activate illumination upon a threshold impact and grade the output by severity.

Why a POSA would combine them: Both are in the same field (protective headwear) and address the same recognized problem — impacts that are not visible and go unreported. Beck states the problem directly (impacts are "not otherwise visually detectable"); Ford and Matero state the coaches/officials "cannot readily discern … which impact episodes should preclude a participant from further exposure to contact." The '352 specification itself frames the goal as "let the player … and those who can see the player, that there was an impact on the helmet and that appropriate action may be required." Adding a known impact-warning indicator to a known sliding-layer helmet is a predictable combination of familiar elements performing their known functions (KSR). No teaching away exists: Von Holst is silent on indicators, and Ford is silent on the layer architecture; neither disparages the other.

GROUND 1B — § 103 over Von Holst + Rush (works even under the 2011 priority date)

If the sensor/indicator limitations retain 2011 priority (Scenario B), Ford (2012) drops out — but Rush (1996) does not. Rush discloses an athletic helmet with triaxially oriented sensors detecting impacts above a selected magnitude and direction, with lamps/LEDs incorporated in the helmet that light on actuation and remain illuminated for hours, plus a transmitter to a remote receiver.

• The triaxial/directional sensors of Rush are closer to a "shear" sensor than a single-axis accelerometer, and combined with the applicant's own admission that shear sensors were known, the "shear force sensor" element is met.
• Rush's "remain illuminated for hours" anticipates the claimed latching indicator ("stay on until manually turned off"), and threshold-adjustable sensors anticipate the claimed sensitivity adjustment.

Combination rationale: identical to Ground 1; both references predate 2011 by well over a decade, so no priority argument defeats this ground.

GROUND 1C — § 103 over Von Holst + Beck and over Von Holst + Matero

• Beck contributes the element Rush does not make as explicit: a shock detector mounted to the exterior surface of the helmet giving a visual or audible signal above a preset threshold, plus the alternative of storing/transmitting g-force and duration. Beck's priority (provisional, Dec. 12, 2003) makes it pre-2011 and post-2011-safe.
• Matero (US 2006/0038694) contributes a sensor + circuit + indicator architecture expressly disclosed in a helmet, and is likewise pre-2011.

Either pairing supplies elements 4–5 against the Von Holst primary reference with the same motivation.

GROUND 2 — Aspect 2 (passive, material-based visual indicator) — § 103 over Von Holst (or Weber) + Matero/Beck/WO 2016/173797

Claim elements (Summary, "Aspect 2"): first protective layer with outside and inside surfaces; second layer connected by an energy transformer layer allowing sliding; an impact-sensing material having a first visual appearance on the outside surface that changes to a second visual appearance when struck by a shear force (localized at impact point or over the whole surface).

• Elements 1–3: Von Holst (or Weber, which explicitly claims rotation + translation relative displacement between liners).
• Element 4: Matero's dye-filled microspheres giving a visible color change (and color intensity tracking magnitude) when an impact threshold is exceeded; Beck's disbursing liquid droplet giving a visual signal; or WO 2016/173797's dye capsule with a rupture diaphragm visible through a window. US 2017/0089779 / US 10,444,100 is the best secondary reference for a torque/shear-sensitive appearance-change medium with graded levels.

Motivation: a passive, battery-free indicator is an express design goal in this art (WO 2016/173797 notes the indicator "advise[s] categorically whether the impact was sufficient"; Beck notes impacts are "not otherwise visually detectable"). Placing a known appearance-changing impact-sensing layer on the outer surface of a known multi-layer helmet is a predictable use of a known material for its known purpose — the very definition of an obvious improvement.

GROUND 3 — Dependent / narrower limitations

4. Motivation-to-combine and expectation of success (consolidated)

1. Same field, same problem. All primary and secondary references are helmet/protective-gear references addressing undetected impacts and TBI/concussion risk — exactly the problem the '352 addresses.
2. Predictable results. Each secondary reference is used for exactly the function it discloses (detect impact → signal; change color → indicate impact). Combining does not change the principle of operation of either element.
3. Express need in the art. The references themselves articulate the unmet need (Beck: damage "visually undetectable"; Matero: coaches "cannot readily discern"; Ford: identifying concussive impacts). The '352 specification repeats this need verbatim — an admission that the problem was known and its solution was a recognized design objective.
4. Contemporaneous commercial/regulatory pressure. The 2010–2017 period saw intense concussion-awareness activity (NFL/NCAA), which supplies a marketplace motivation for helmet-mounted impact indication (KSR "design incentives" and "market forces").
5. Corroboration that these combos are viable in this family. The PTAB filings against sibling Brainguard patent US 9,516,909 (IPR2025-01033) rely precisely on Von Holst + Halldin and on Weber, with the declaration opining that a POSA "would have been motivated to modify Von Holst … with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve a helmet with a shear mechanism … allow[ing] the outer protective shell to slide relative to the inner protective shell." See PTACTS petition excerpt. Although the '909 is a different patent (and, per the prior litigation section, US 10,716,352 was not among the patents asserted in BrainGuard v. Vista Outdoor, 8:24-cv-2652), the same inventive family and overlapping specification make this art directly probative of the sliding-layer claims recited in the '352.

5. Anticipated patentee rebuttals and how they would be met

6. Confidence, gaps, and recommended next steps

High confidence: that (i) Von Holst (and/or the applicant's own '319-family disclosure) fully renders the multi-layer "energy and impact transformer with sliding" architecture; and (ii) Ford, Beck, Rush, and Matero each disclose a helmet-mounted impact sensor driving an LED/audio indicator, with thresholding and severity grading. These are face-cited or long-pre-dating references.

Moderate confidence: the mapping of "shear force sensor" to the accelerometer-based references — bridgeable via the specification's admission, but not airtight if the granted claim is construed to require a shear-specific transducer.

Explicit gaps (do not treat as settled):

1. Verbatim claim text still unverified (carried forward from the prior section). Every element mapping above is keyed to the Summary of the Invention; the actual claim boundaries — particularly whether "shear force sensor" is a structural limitation and whether Aspect 2 is a separate independent claim — must be confirmed against the granted patent before any rejection is relied upon. Confirm via USPTO PatentCenter / the granted PDF.
2. The CIP new-matter boundary is unverified. If the sensor/indicator claims actually enjoy 2011 priority, Ground 1 (Ford) fails and Grounds 1B/1C (Rush/Beck/Matero) carry the analysis.
3. Non-patent literature for the specific material types (polymer opal, mechanochromic "CAM"/"EM," photonic band-gap Bragg fibers) was not retrieved; I cannot cite a URL for those. If the claim recites them specifically, obtain dated NPL.
4. No docket check performed for whether the '352 has since been asserted (the prior section found no such case as of its search); a PACER/Unified Patents check on 10716352 remains the definitive negative.

Bottom line: The claims of US 10,716,352 are, on the present record, likely obvious under § 103 as combinations of known sliding-layer helmet art (Von Holst, and/or the applicant's own '319-family disclosures, Von Holst being expressly cited on the '352 face) with known helmet impact-indication art (Ford, Beck, Rush, Matero), the latter supplying both the active LED/audio indicator and the passive appearance-changing impact-sensing material. The strongest, priority-proof grounds are Von Holst + Rush and Von Holst + Beck; the strongest overall grounds (assuming the sensor/indicator limitations are CIP new matter) are Von Holst + Ford for Aspect 1 and Von Holst + Matero/WO 2016/173797/US 2017/0089779 for Aspect 2.