US 9060561

US patent 9060561, titled "Biomechanics aware helmet," was issued to inventor Robert T. Knight and assigned to Brainguard Technologies Inc. The application for this patent was filed on September 15, 2014, and the patent was granted on June 23, 2015. The patent is currently active.

Abstract:
The patent describes protective gear, such as a helmet, comprising an outer shell layer connected to a middle shell layer via an outer energy and impact transformer layer. The middle shell layer is further connected to an inner shell layer through an inner energy and impact transformer layer. These transformer layers are designed to flexibly connect the shell layers, allowing them to move and slide relative to each other to absorb various forces, including impact, rotational, and shear forces. The transformer layers can be made from materials like gels, fluids, electro-rheological elements, or magneto-rheological elements. The protective gear aims to shield users not only from direct impact and penetrative forces but also from rotational and shear forces.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Helmet with Three Shell Layers): This claim describes a helmet featuring three shell layers: a first, a second, and a third. The first shell layer is connected to the second via a first energy transformer layer. This first transformer layer contains a material (first absorptive/dissipative material) that absorbs energy from forces on the first shell and allows the first shell to slide relative to the second. The third shell layer is connected to the second shell layer through a second energy transformer layer, which includes a second absorptive/dissipative material. This second transformer layer is designed to absorb energy from forces transmitted through the first shell and the first transformer layer to the second shell.

• Claim 10 (Helmet with Two Shell Layers and a Lining): This claim outlines a helmet with a first shell layer and a second shell layer. Similar to Claim 1, the first shell is connected to the second via a first energy transformer layer, which contains an absorptive/dissipative material allowing the first shell to slide relative to the second, thereby absorbing energy from imparted forces. Additionally, a lining layer is connected to the second shell layer, and this lining is designed to conform to a human head.

• Claim 18 (Protective Gear with Three Shell Layers): This claim is broader than Claim 1, covering "protective gear" generally, rather than specifically a helmet. It comprises a first shell layer, a second shell layer connected to the first through a first energy transformer layer (with first absorptive/dissipative means for relative sliding and energy absorption), and a third shell layer connected to the second through a second energy transformer layer (with second absorptive/dissipative means for absorbing energy transmitted from the outer layers).

Legal Status and Litigation:
The patent US9060561B2 is active and is associated with litigation. A PTAB case, IPR2025-01030, was filed but not instituted procedurally. Additionally, a U.S. case (8:24-cv-02652) was filed in the California Central District Court, and worldwide family litigation has also been initiated.

The patent US9060561 is involved in at least two known litigation matters:

1. PTAB Case:

   • Case Number: IPR2025-01030
   • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural (meaning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to initiate a review of the patent's claims based on procedural grounds)

2. U.S. District Court Case:

   • Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
   • Case Number: 8:24-cv-02652
   • Status: Active litigation.

Additionally, the patent family has also been involved in a first worldwide family litigation, though specific details about this case (plaintiff(s), defendant(s), filing date, and outcome/current status) are not immediately available from the provided information.

Proceedings overview

Only one AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 9060561. This proceeding, IPR2025-01030, was denied institution on procedural grounds, meaning no claims were formally reviewed or invalidated by the PTAB. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as it has survived an IPR challenge without any claims being canceled.

IPR2025-01030 — REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v. Brainguard Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial (as of 2025-12-23). The PTAB declined to institute the IPR on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits of patentability.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the panel for the institution decision for IPR2025-01030 is not publicly available in the provided patent text or typical public PTAB data feeds without deeper inquiry into the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for the specific case.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not detailed in the provided information. To obtain this, one would need to access the petition for IPR2025-01030 via the PTAB E2E system.
• Institution decision: Denied (Discretionary Denial). The decision to deny institution was made by 2025-12-23, as indicated by the "last modified" date on the proceeding status. The reasoning for a discretionary denial typically involves factors such as parallel district court litigation, advanced stage of the litigation, or inefficient use of PTAB resources, as per relevant PTAB rules (e.g., Fintiv factors) or other procedural considerations. The provided information only indicates "Procedural" and "Discretionary Denial" without further detail on the panel's specific reasoning.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means the patent claims were not subjected to a full inter partes review on their merits. For a defendant, this means the patent owner's claims have not been weakened by this IPR. However, it also means the patent's validity against the specific prior art raised in the petition has not been affirmed, only that the PTAB chose not to hear the challenge for procedural reasons. A future IPR petition, if it overcomes the procedural hurdle, could still challenge the claims.

Strategic summary

Currently, none of the claims of US9060561 have been formally canceled or invalidated by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01030, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, leaving all claims (1-20) as originally granted. This means that, as of today, May 19, 2026, all claims of US9060561 are considered SUSTAINED in the sense that they have not been successfully challenged at the PTAB. They remain UNTESTED on the merits of patentability in an IPR.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01030 was denied institution on discretionary grounds, it is unlikely that the petitioner, REVELYST SALES LLC et al., would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising the same or reasonably could have raised grounds in future litigation. Estoppel typically applies after a final written decision or a judgment in a civil action. Therefore, for a defendant currently being asserted against, the prior-art grounds that might have been raised in IPR2025-01030 are likely still available for use in district court or potentially in a new IPR petition if the procedural bar can be overcome.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner, aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, other than the mention of Unified Patents as the source for the PTAB case information.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01030 was denied institution, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. The patent claims remain active and ostensibly valid.
• No active IPR proceedings are pending for this patent that would involve trial-stage milestones.
• A defendant facing assertion of US9060561 should recognize that the patent's claims have not been formally tested and found patentable by the PTAB on the merits. While this denial avoids invalidation, it also means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving a full IPR trial. A new IPR petition could be considered, potentially addressing the procedural grounds that led to the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01030. It would be crucial to understand the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial by accessing the full institution decision for IPR2025-01030 on the PTAB E2E system to assess how to avoid similar outcomes.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for US patent 9060561 is Robert T. Knight. His employer at the time of filing is not explicitly stated in the patent text.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Brainguard Technologies Inc.
Based on the patent's focus on "Biomechanics aware helmet" and "protective gear," it is implied they aimed to ship products embodying the claims, likely helmets or similar protective equipment. Their current operating status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not explicitly stated in the provided patent text, and further research would be needed to determine this.

Assignment timeline

As of May 19, 2026, a search of the USPTO Assignment Center for patent US9060561 (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) reveals no recorded assignments subsequent to its issuance. This indicates that Brainguard Technologies Inc. remains the current assignee of record.

Brainguard Technologies Inc. has developed prototype helmets for various sports (bicycling, baseball, football, hockey, snow sports) and aims to bring them to market, with availability potentially as early as fall 2021. Their mission is to "enable exceptional helmet performance that protects the brain" by designing "smart helmet systems" that don't add extra weight and protect against traumatic brain injury, particularly rotational shear forces. The company holds multiple US and foreign patents related to their multi-layered helmet design.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9060561
    2011 : Priority Date
    2014 : Application filed by Brainguard Technologies Inc
    2015 : Patent granted to Brainguard Technologies Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent remains with the original assignee, Brainguard Technologies Inc., which appears to be an operating company developing helmet technology.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Brainguard Technologies Inc. is not identified as a known NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent, so no correspondent chain to analyze.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no recorded assignments.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent is involved in litigation, there are no recorded assignments to analyze in relation to the litigation filing dates. The district court case 8:24-cv-02652 was filed in California Central District Court, and a related case, BRAINGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. REVELYST SALES LLC (3:26-mc-80147), was filed in the California Northern District Court on May 8, 2026.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of Brainguard Technologies Inc. being in bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence to suggest privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not assigned to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While Brainguard Technologies Inc. appears to be an operating company developing products, the absence of any recorded assignment history in the USPTO Assignment Center makes it impossible to fully reconstruct the ownership chain or definitively rule out all NPE patterns. The patent is currently active and associated with ongoing litigation, but without assignment records, a comprehensive assessment of NPE/troll patterns is not feasible. The recent lawsuit, BRAINGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. REVELYST SALES LLC (3:26-mc-80147), filed on May 8, 2026, indicates that Brainguard Technologies Inc. is actively asserting its patent rights.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US9060561.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9060561, I will examine the "Citations" section of the patent, which lists documents cited by the applicant or the examiner during prosecution. The goal is to identify references that describe elements of the claimed invention, particularly those related to multiple shell layers and energy-absorbing transformer layers.

Here's an analysis of the cited prior art from US9060561, focusing on relevance to claims 1, 10, and 18:

Claim 1 (Helmet with Three Shell Layers):

• A first shell layer.
• A second shell layer connected to the first through a first energy transformer layer with first absorptive/dissipative material allowing sliding.
• A third shell layer connected to the second through a second energy transformer layer with second absorptive/dissipative material for absorbing energy from forces imparted through the outer layers.

Claim 10 (Helmet with Two Shell Layers and a Lining):

• A first shell layer.
• A second shell layer connected to the first through a first energy transformer layer with absorptive/dissipative material allowing sliding.
• A lining layer connected to the second shell layer, configured to conform to a human head.

Claim 18 (Protective Gear with Three Shell Layers):

• A first shell layer.
• A second shell layer connected to the first through a first energy transformer layer with first absorptive/dissipative means allowing sliding.
• A third shell layer connected to the second through a second energy transformer layer with second absorptive/dissipative means for absorbing energy from forces imparted through the outer layers.

Analysis of Prior Art Citations:

1. US7076811B2 (Puchalski)

• Full Citation: US7076811B2, "Protective head covering having impact absorbing crumple or shear zone," issued to Ione G. Puchalski on July 18, 2006 (filed September 9, 2002).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a helmet with a shell consisting of three (or more) discrete panels that are firmly coupled but move relative to one another upon impact, creating a "crumple zone" or "shear zone" to dissipate and redirect forces.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant to Claims 1, 10, and 18, particularly regarding the concept of multiple layers/panels that move relative to each other to absorb and dissipate impact and shear forces. The "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" directly addresses the idea of relative sliding movement between layers for energy absorption.
  • Claim 1, 18: The three discrete panels could be considered analogous to the "first, second, and third shell layers." The relative movement and "crumple/shear zone" function as "energy transformer layers" with "absorptive/dissipative means" allowing sliding.
  • Claim 10: The concept of multiple, relatively moving layers for energy absorption is present, potentially anticipating the shell and energy transformer layer combination.

2. US5815846A (Calonge)

• Full Citation: US5815846A, "Resistant helmet assembly," issued to Calonge on October 6, 1998 (filed November 27, 1996).
• Brief Description: This patent describes an impact-resistant helmet assembly with a first material layer coupled to a second material layer, defining a gas chamber in between for impact dampening. It also includes a fluid chamber with a viscous gel to provide resistance against disbursement from an impacted region, enhancing impact distribution and dampening.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant to Claims 1, 10, and 18, especially concerning fluid or gel-filled layers for impact absorption and distribution.
  • Claim 1, 18 (and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6): The "first material layer" and "second material layer" can be seen as shell layers. The "gas chamber" and "fluid chamber" containing a "viscous gel" or "fluid" directly anticipate the "first energy transformer layer" (and second) with "absorptive/dissipative material" comprising a "gel" or "fluid."
  • Claim 10 (and dependent claims 11, 12): The same reasoning applies for the two-shell system with a gel/fluid transformer layer.

3. US5956777A (Popovich)

• Full Citation: US5956777A, "Helmet," issued to Popovich on September 28, 1999 (filed July 22, 1998).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a helmet with a rigid inner shell, a resilient spacing layer disposed outside and in contact with the inner shell, and an articulated shell (with discrete rigid segments coupled by resilient members) outside the resilient spacing layer.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is relevant to Claims 1, 10, and 18 by demonstrating a multi-layered helmet design with relative movement and energy absorption features.
  • Claim 1, 18: The "rigid inner shell," "resilient spacing layer," and "articulated shell having a plurality of discrete rigid segments" can be mapped to the three shell layers and the energy transformer layers. The "resilient spacing layer" and "resilient members which couple adjacent ones of said rigid segments" can act as the "energy transformer layers" allowing for movement and absorbing energy.
  • Claim 10: The "rigid inner shell" and "articulated shell" separated by a "resilient spacing layer" presents a two-layer system with energy absorption.

4. US6434755B1 (Halstead)

• Full Citation: US6434755B1, "Helmet," issued to Halstead on August 20, 2002 (filed June 4, 1999).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a football helmet with liner sections of different thicknesses and densities. Thicker, softer sections handle less intense impacts by crushing, while thinner, harder sections prevent bottoming out during more intense impacts.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is relevant for the concept of varying material properties within protective layers for impact management. While it doesn't explicitly describe sliding layers or electro/magneto-rheological fluids, the idea of tailored energy absorption within multiple layers (even if contiguous) is present.
  • Claim 9, 10, 19, 20: This reference is particularly relevant to the lining layer (Claim 9, 10, 19) and the use of foam (Claim 20) with different properties for cushioning and energy absorption. The "liner sections of different thicknesses and densities" for impact attenuation could be considered a type of cushioning device within a lining layer.

5. US8533869B1 (Noggin Group LLC)

• Full Citation: US8533869B1, "Energy absorbing helmet underwear," issued to Noggin Group LLC on September 17, 2013 (filed February 19, 2008).
• Brief Description: This patent describes energy-absorbing helmet underwear. The details of the energy absorption mechanism would require reviewing the full patent.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): Without the full text, it's harder to assess specific anticipation. However, the title suggests a focus on energy absorption, likely within a layer adjacent to the head, making it potentially relevant to the lining layer and its energy-absorbing functions in Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. If it describes layered structures for energy absorption, it could also be broadly relevant to the transformer layers.

6. US20130019384A1 (Brainguard Technologies, Inc.)

• Full Citation: US20130019384A1, "Biomechanics aware protective gear," published January 24, 2013 (filed July 21, 2011).
• Brief Description: This is an earlier publication by the same assignee, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., and is a parent application to US9060561. It likely discloses similar or identical subject matter regarding biomechanics-aware protective gear with multiple layers and energy/impact transformers.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a parent application with an earlier priority date, this document is highly likely to anticipate or render obvious many, if not all, of the claims of US9060561 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It serves as "prior art by the same inventive entity" (or common assignee) and would typically disclose the core concepts of multi-shell layers and energy-transforming layers for rotational and shear forces.

7. WO2013013180A1 (Robert Knight)

• Full Citation: WO2013013180A1, "Biomechanics aware protective gear," published January 24, 2013 (filed July 21, 2011).
• Brief Description: This is a PCT application, also by Robert Knight (the inventor of US9060561), with the same priority date as US20130019384A1. It describes biomechanics-aware protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US20130019384A1, this document, sharing the same priority date and inventor/assignee, is highly likely to anticipate or render obvious the claims of US9060561.

8. EP2734071A1 (Brainguard Technologies, Inc.)

• Full Citation: EP2734071A1, "Biomechanics aware protective gear," published May 28, 2014 (filed July 21, 2011).
• Brief Description: This is a European patent application by the same assignee, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., with the same priority date as the aforementioned related applications. It also describes biomechanics-aware protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): Again, sharing the same priority date and assignee, this European application would likely anticipate or render obvious the claims of US9060561.

9. US8863319B2 (Brainguard Technologies, Inc.)

• Full Citation: US8863319B2, "Biomechanics aware protective gear," issued October 21, 2014 (filed July 21, 2011).
• Brief Description: This is another U.S. patent by the same assignee and sharing the same priority date. It explicitly states it is related to "biomechanics aware protective gear."
• Potential Anticipation/Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a direct continuation or related application claiming the same priority date, this patent would certainly anticipate or render obvious the claims of US9060561. It is likely that US9060561 is a divisional or continuation of this patent or a common parent.

Other citations (e.g., US3946441A, US4352484A, US5713082A, US6103641A, US6145348A, US6378140B1, US6658671B1, US6728969B2, US20030088906A1, US6996856B2, WO2004032659A1, US7254843B2, US20060059605A1, US20110004980A1, US8176574B2):
These patents broadly relate to safety helmets, energy absorption, blunt trauma reduction, impact absorbing products, or layered constructions. While they contribute to the general state of the art, their relevance for direct anticipation of the specific multi-shell, sliding layer, and electro/magneto-rheological element features of claims 1, 10, and 18 of US9060561 would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison of their disclosures. Many appear to address the broader concept of impact absorption in protective gear.

Specifically for electro-rheological/magneto-rheological elements (Claim 4, 13, 14, 15):
The provided patent text for US9060561 explicitly mentions electro-rheological and magneto-rheological elements as part of the energy and impact transformer layers. If any of the cited prior art explicitly discloses the use of such "smart fluids" in multi-layered protective gear for viscosity changes in response to impact, it would be highly relevant to these specific dependent claims. However, none of the brief descriptions for the cited patents explicitly mention these materials, though Calonge (US5815846A) discusses viscous gels which could be a precursor. Further examination of the full text of all cited patents would be necessary to definitively determine anticipation or obviousness for these specific features.

Overall Most Relevant:
The most relevant prior art for US9060561 are the Puchalski (US7076811B2), Calonge (US5815846A), and Popovich (US5956777A) patents, as they directly address multi-layered helmet structures with mechanisms for relative movement and energy absorption to mitigate impact forces, including potentially shear forces. Furthermore, the multiple family members by Brainguard Technologies, Inc. and Robert Knight (US20130019384A1, WO2013013180A1, EP2734071A1, US8863319B2) are essentially the same inventive concept filed earlier and therefore would be highly anticipatory.

Obviousness Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 103) for US9060561

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US patent 9060561 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention's effective filing date (July 21, 2011). A PHOSITA in this field would be an engineer or product designer specializing in protective gear, particularly helmets, with expertise in materials science, biomechanics, and various energy absorption and dissipation mechanisms. They would be aware of the limitations of existing helmets in protecting against rotational and shear forces and would be motivated to improve overall protective performance.

The problem addressed by US9060561 is the insufficient dampening, transformation, dissipation, and/or distribution of rotational, tension, compression, and/or shear forces by conventional protective gear, which can lead to significant neurological damage. The patent seeks to provide "biomechanics aware" protective gear that addresses these secondary forces.

Combinations of Prior Art and Motivation for Combination

Combination 1: US7076811B2 (Puchalski) + US5815846A (Calonge)

• Claim Scope: This combination is highly relevant to independent claims 1 and 18, which describe protective gear (including helmets) with multiple shell layers connected by energy transformer layers containing absorptive/dissipative material that allows for relative sliding. It is also relevant to dependent claims specifying gels or fluids (claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12).

• References:

  • US7076811B2 (Puchalski): Discloses a helmet with a shell composed of three (or more) discrete panels that are physically coupled but move relative to one another upon impact, creating a "crumple zone" or "shear zone" to dissipate and redirect forces. This directly teaches a multi-layered structure with relative movement between layers for energy absorption and force mitigation.
  • US5815846A (Calonge): Describes an impact-resistant helmet assembly with a first material layer coupled to a second material layer, defining a gas chamber and a fluid chamber containing a viscous gel. This gel provides resistance against disbursement from an impacted region, enhancing impact distribution and dampening. Calonge directly teaches the use of fluids or gels as "absorptive/dissipative material" within layers of a helmet.

• Obviousness Argument: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of Puchalski and Calonge to create a more effective biomechanics-aware helmet. Puchalski provides a structural mechanism (multiple, relatively sliding panels) for dissipating impact and shear forces through movement. Calonge offers specific materials (viscous gels or fluids) known for their impact-dampening and force-distributing properties within helmet layers.
  The motivation for this combination is evident: to enhance the energy absorption and force distribution capabilities of a multi-layered helmet. A PHOSITA would recognize that simply allowing panels to move (Puchalski) could be made more efficient by filling the spaces between them, or incorporating within the layers, materials specifically designed to dampen and distribute energy, such as the gels or fluids taught by Calonge. This combination directly addresses the problem of effectively absorbing and dissipating various forces, including shear, by integrating known mechanical and material solutions from the prior art.

Combination 2: US7076811B2 (Puchalski) OR US5956777A (Popovich) + US5815846A (Calonge) + US6434755B1 (Halstead)

• Claim Scope: This combination is particularly relevant to independent claim 10, which specifies a helmet with two shell layers, an energy transformer layer allowing sliding, and a lining layer configured to conform to a human head. It also covers dependent claims regarding gel/fluid materials and foam in the lining (claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 20).

• References:

  • US7076811B2 (Puchalski): As above, provides the multi-layered helmet structure with relative movement for energy absorption.
  • US5956777A (Popovich): Describes a helmet with a rigid inner shell, a resilient spacing layer, and an articulated outer shell with discrete rigid segments coupled by resilient members. This also teaches a multi-layered design with relative movement and energy absorption.
  • US5815846A (Calonge): As above, teaches the use of viscous gels or fluids for impact dampening and distribution between helmet layers.
  • US6434755B1 (Halstead): Describes a football helmet with liner sections of different thicknesses and densities, where softer sections crush for less intense impacts and harder sections prevent bottoming out. This reference clearly teaches the use of a lining layer for comfort and varying levels of impact absorption, including foam (claim 20).

• Obviousness Argument: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these references to create a comprehensive, biomechanics-aware helmet. Starting with the multi-shell concept and relative movement from either Puchalski or Popovich, a PHOSITA would naturally incorporate Calonge's teaching of using fluids/gels as the absorptive/dissipative material in the energy transformer layers to enhance dampening and force distribution. It is standard practice in helmet design to include an inner lining for comfort, fit, and additional impact absorption. Halstead explicitly teaches such a lining with varied densities for improved impact management.
  The motivation would be to optimize a helmet's protective capabilities by combining structural mechanisms for shear/rotational force management (Puchalski/Popovich) with advanced fluid-based dampening (Calonge), while ensuring wearer comfort and localized impact protection with an integrated lining (Halstead). Reducing a three-shell system to a two-shell system would be a routine design choice based on specific performance requirements, weight, and cost considerations, without losing the inventive concept of sliding layers with energy transformers and a lining.

Combination 3: (Puchalski or Popovich) + US5815846A (Calonge) + General Knowledge of Electro-Rheological (ER) and Magneto-Rheological (MR) Fluids

• Claim Scope: This combination addresses dependent claims 4, 13, 14, and 15, which specifically mention electro-rheological elements or magneto-rheological elements as the absorptive/dissipative material.

• References:

  • US7076811B2 (Puchalski) / US5956777A (Popovich): Provide the foundation of multi-shell, relatively sliding structures for energy absorption in helmets.
  • US5815846A (Calonge): Teaches the use of viscous gels/fluids within helmet layers for impact dampening.
  • General Knowledge of ER/MR Fluids: By the effective filing date of July 21, 2011, ER and MR fluids were well-known "smart materials" in various engineering fields (e.g., automotive suspension systems, vibration dampers, haptic devices) for their ability to rapidly change viscosity in response to electric or magnetic fields.

• Obviousness Argument: Given the recognized problem of needing to dissipate impact energy, especially rotational and shear forces, at very fast time scales (e.g., "a few milliseconds or hundreds of microseconds" as stated in US9060561's description), a PHOSITA would be motivated to improve the responsiveness and adaptability of the energy transformer layers. Starting with the multi-shell design from Puchalski or Popovich, and incorporating fluid-based dampening as taught by Calonge, it would be an obvious substitution to replace a passive viscous fluid with a known "smart fluid" like an ER or MR fluid. These smart fluids offer "active" or "semi-active" control over viscosity, allowing for dynamic adjustment of damping properties in response to impact stress or strain, thereby offering superior energy dissipation and force reduction compared to a static viscous gel. This substitution would lead to a more "biomechanically aware" protective gear capable of reacting quickly to minimize impact transmission, a clear desideratum in the art.

Conclusion

The core inventive concepts of US9060561—multi-layered helmet structures with relative movement between layers, the use of gels or fluids for energy absorption, and the inclusion of a lining layer—are well-established in the prior art. The combinations of Puchalski, Calonge, Popovich, and Halstead, as detailed above, provide all the elements of the independent claims. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these elements to improve the protective capabilities of helmets against a broader range of forces, particularly rotational and shear forces, by integrating known energy-management principles and materials into multi-layered designs, thereby achieving the goals outlined in US9060561. The substitution of passive fluids with known ER/MR smart fluids for active dampening would also be an obvious improvement to achieve faster and more tunable energy dissipation.

Furthermore, the existence of multiple related patent applications and granted patents by the same assignee and inventor (Brainguard Technologies, Inc. and Robert T. Knight), such as US20130019384A1, WO2013013180A1, EP2734071A1, and US8863319B2, all sharing the same priority date and describing "biomechanics aware protective gear," strongly suggests that the underlying inventive concept was already developed and disclosed by the applicants prior to the filing of US9060561, making the claims of US9060561 obvious variations of their own earlier work.

To provide a comprehensive overview of US patent 9060561, I will consult the USPTO database and other reliable patent information sources for details on patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation/divisional applications, related family members, and the projected expiration date.

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

US patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, typically have a term of 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application. However, this term can be adjusted.

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): PTA compensates for delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. It is an addition to the 20-year lifespan of the patent. The USPTO automatically determines and issues a notice of PTA with the patent. A PHOSITA in this field would be an engineer or product designer specializing in protective gear, particularly helmets, with expertise in materials science, biomechanics, and various energy absorption and dissipation mechanisms.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): PTE is available for patents covering pharmaceutical products and medical devices that undergo regulatory review (e.g., FDA approval) prior to commercial marketing. This extends the patent term to restore a portion of the time lost during this review process, up to a maximum of five years, and not beyond 14 years from the date of marketing approval.

Based on the nature of US patent 9060561, "Biomechanics aware helmet," it is not a pharmaceutical or medical device patent subject to FDA regulatory review. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to have received a Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156.

To determine any specific Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for US9060561, one would typically need to review the "Issue Fee Due" or "Patent" tab within the USPTO's Patent Center for the patent's file wrapper, as the USPTO does not publicly calculate expiration dates for patents but provides a calculator and guidelines to estimate them. Without direct access to the full patent prosecution history from the USPTO Patent Center, the exact PTA amount for US9060561 cannot be definitively stated here.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: A continuation application is a second application for the same invention claimed in a prior non-provisional application and filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application. It benefits from the filing date of the earlier application.
• Divisional Applications: A divisional application is filed when an examiner determines that a patent application contains more than one invention. The applicant must then select one invention to proceed with, and the unselected inventions can be pursued in one or more divisional applications. Divisional applications also retain the benefit of the filing date of the original (parent) application.

The provided "Priority Applications" and "Related Parent Applications" sections of the patent indicate several related applications:

• US14/485,993 (this patent application for US9060561B2) claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. application Ser. No. 13/554,471, entitled "BIOMECHANICS AWARE PROTECTIVE GEAR," filed Jul. 20, 2012.
• US13/554,471 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/510,401, entitled "SMART BIOMECHANICS AWARE ENERGY CONSCIOUS PROTECTIVE GEAR WITH TISSUE PROTECTION," filed on Jul. 21, 2011.

The patent lists several other related applications under "Priority Applications," all claiming the same priority date of July 21, 2011:

• US14/714,093 (US9271536B2)
• US14/809,142 (US9414635B2)
• US14/927,093 (US9289022B2)
• US15/050,373 (US9521874B2)
• US15/050,357 (US9516909B2)
• US15/202,173 (US9723889B2)
• US15/348,757 (US9750296B2)
• US15/631,713 (US20170280809A1)
• US15/784,486 (US10716352B2)
• US15/832,578 (US20180092422A1)

These numerous applications, all stemming from the same priority date, strongly suggest a strategy of filing a series of continuation and/or divisional applications to protect various aspects or embodiments of the "biomechanics aware protective gear" invention. This allows the applicant to pursue different claim scopes from the original disclosure.

Related Family Members

A patent family is a set of patent documents in various countries related to a single invention. The "Family Applications" section in the patent document indicates the following as family members, all sharing the same priority date of 2011-07-21:

• US13/554,563 (US10238162B2)
• US13/554,471 (US8863319B2)
• US14/485,993 (US9060561B2 - this patent)
• US14/714,093 (US9271536B2)
• US14/809,142 (US9414635B2)
• US14/927,093 (US9289022B2)
• US15/050,357 (US9516909B2)
• US15/050,373 (US9521874B2)
• US15/202,173 (US9723889B2)
• US15/348,757 (US9750296B2)
• US15/631,713 (US20170280809A1)

Additionally, the "Country Status" section lists international family members:

• EP (3 applications, e.g., EP3281543A1, EP2734071B1)
• ES (1 application, ES2637796T3)
• WO (1 application, WO2013013180A1)

These demonstrate a global patenting strategy for the underlying invention.

Projected Expiration Date

For utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date of the patent application. If the patent claims priority to an earlier application, the 20-year term starts from the filing date of the earliest priority application.

• The earliest priority date for US9060561B2 is July 21, 2011 (from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/510,401).
• Counting 20 years from this date, the base expiration date would be July 21, 2031.

The patent document on Google Patents itself lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2032-07-20. This indicates that there has likely been a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted during prosecution. The difference between July 21, 2031, and July 20, 2032, is approximately one year. Without the specific PTA calculation from the USPTO file history, the exact breakdown of this adjustment (e.g., due to USPTO delays) cannot be detailed.

Therefore, the projected expiration date for US patent 9060561 is July 20, 2032.