US 9516909

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9516909:

US Patent 9516909: Biomechanics Aware Helmet

• Title: Biomechanics aware helmet
• Assignee: Brainguard Technologies Inc
• Inventor: Robert T. Knight
• Filing Date: February 22, 2016 (Application number US15/050,357)
• Issue Date: December 13, 2016
• Abstract: Protective gear, such as a helmet, features an outer shell layer connected to a middle shell layer via an outer energy and impact transformer layer. The middle shell layer is similarly 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 one another to absorb impact, rotational, and shear forces. The transformer layers may be made from materials like gels, fluids, electro-rheological elements, or magneto-rheological elements. The protective gear aims to protect users not only from direct impact and penetrative forces but also from rotational and shear forces.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a helmet that includes an outer protective shell and an inner protective shell. Positioned between these two shells is a first energy transformer layer that incorporates a shear mechanism. This mechanism enables the outer shell to slide independently relative to the inner shell. The helmet also features a liner layer attached to the inner protective shell, intended to sit between the inner shell and a person's head. A chin strap is connected to the inner protective shell, and both the chin strap and the liner layer work together to secure the inner shell to the head while still allowing the outer shell to slide.

• Independent Claim 12: This claim is similar to Claim 1 but uses broader terminology. It describes a helmet with an outer protective layer and an inner protective layer. A first energy transformer layer with a shear mechanism is situated between these layers, allowing the outer layer to slide relative to the inner layer. A liner layer is connected to the inner protective layer and is configured to be placed between the inner protective layer and a "portion of a human body." A chin strap is attached to the inner protective layer, and together with the liner layer, it secures the inner protective layer to the "human head" while the outer protective layer can still slide.

  • Uncertainty Note: Claim 12 mentions the liner layer being configured to reside against "a portion of a human body" but then specifically states the chin strap and liner secure the inner protective layer to the "human head." This suggests an initial broader scope for the liner's placement that is then narrowed to the head for the full assembly.

Litigation Status:

As of April 26, 2026, the patent US9516909B2 is "Active" with an anticipated expiration date of July 20, 2032.

The patent document itself notes the following litigation:

• A PTAB case, IPR2025-01033, was filed but "Not Instituted - Procedural."
• A US case was filed in the California Central District Court under case number 8:24-cv-02652.
• "First worldwide family litigation filed" is also noted.

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for US9516909 did not yield any direct results indicating active appeals related to this patent number in the listed scheduled cases for May 2026 or other general litigation updates from early 2026. Therefore, while there are ongoing litigation efforts related to the patent (as described in the patent's "Legal status" section), specific CAFC docket entries for 2026 directly naming US9516909 were not found in the search results.

Known litigation involving US patent 9516909 includes:

1. District Court Litigation

• Case Name: BrainGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Vista Outdoor Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff(s): BrainGuard Technologies, Inc.

• Defendant(s): Vista Outdoor Inc. et al.

• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

• Case Number: 8:24-cv-02652

• Filing Date: December 6, 2024

• Current Status/Outcome: The docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2025. A declination of consent form was received on December 24, 2024. A stipulation regarding dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 (a related patent, not 9516909 directly) was filed, with a claim construction hearing date set for October 22, 2025.

• Case Name: BRAINGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. REVELYST SALES LLC

• Plaintiff(s): BRAINGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

• Defendant(s): REVELYST SALES LLC

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

• Case Number: 3:26-mc-80147 (also listed as 4:26-mc-80147)

• Filing Date: May 8, 2026

• Current Status/Outcome: This appears to be a recently filed miscellaneous case. No further outcome information is available yet.

2. PTAB Litigation

• Case Number: IPR2025-01033
• Status: "Not Instituted - Procedural."

(Note: While the provided patent abstract mentions "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to darts-ip, specific details such as plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome for that specific worldwide litigation are not readily available in the search results provided.)

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US Patent 9516909, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means that all claims of the patent remain intact and have not been challenged on the merits in an IPR, thereby strengthening the patent's defensive posture for a defendant.

IPR2025-01033 — REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v. ROBERT T. KNIGHT

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on procedural grounds, rather than ruling on the merits of the patentability challenge).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the search results for the institution decision.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent 9516909. The specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) are typically detailed in the institution decision, but the search results indicate a discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-12-23. The denial was procedural, indicating the PTAB chose not to institute the review. This often happens for reasons such as a parallel district court litigation advancing faster, or based on the Fintiv factors, although the specific reasoning is not provided in the snippet.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found, likely due to the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: Since institution was denied, all claims (1-20) of US9516909 remain unchallenged by this IPR. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been weakened by this specific PTAB challenge, and a future IPR-based defense would need to navigate the reasoning for the discretionary denial, potentially presenting new arguments or prior art.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-20) of US Patent 9516909 are SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits through PTAB proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01033, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the Board did not reach the merits of the patentability challenge. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or found unpatentable through PTAB review.

The estoppel landscape is minimal for future petitioners due to the discretionary denial. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), estoppel only applies to claims for which a final written decision is issued, or where the petitioner raised or could have reasonably raised a ground during a trial that resulted in a final written decision. Since no trial was instituted and no final written decision was issued, the petitioner (REVELYST SALES LLC et al.) and their privies are not formally estopped from raising the same or similar prior art grounds against the patent in subsequent proceedings, although repeated petitions might face further discretionary denials. For a new defendant, most prior-art grounds are still theoretically available for a future PTAB challenge.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against this patent to date, and it was denied institution. This does not indicate a pattern of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner or involvement of defensive aggregators. However, the presence of ongoing district court litigation (as noted in the "Litigation summary" section) might have influenced the PTAB's discretionary denial, potentially under the Fintiv factors, which consider the advanced stage of parallel litigation.

Recommended next steps

If a defendant is currently facing assertion of US Patent 9516909, it is important to understand that all claims remain intact from a PTAB perspective.

• Review the specific reasoning provided in the PTAB's Decision on Institution for IPR2025-01033 to understand why institution was denied. This decision is crucial for assessing the viability of any future PTAB challenge. The decision should be available on the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2025-01033.
• If considering a new PTAB challenge, analyze the prior art carefully, and develop arguments that address any implicit or explicit concerns raised in the denial decision of IPR2025-01033. Consider whether new prior art or different arguments could lead to a different outcome.
• Given the active district court litigation (8:24-cv-02652 in California Central District Court and 3:26-mc-80147 in California Northern District Court), a defendant should also evaluate how PTAB strategy integrates with the ongoing court proceedings, particularly regarding any potential for a stay of litigation if an IPR were to be instituted.## Proceedings overview
  There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US Patent 9516909 (IPR2025-01033), which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means that all claims of the patent remain intact and have not been challenged on the merits in an IPR, thereby strengthening the patent's defensive posture for a defendant.

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US Patent 9516909 (IPR2025-01033), which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means that all claims of the patent remain intact and have not been challenged on the merits in an IPR, thereby strengthening the patent's defensive posture for a defendant.

IPR2025-01033 — REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v. ROBERT T. KNIGHT

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on procedural grounds rather than ruling on the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: The institution decision was issued on 2025-12-23. As of October 20, 2025, USPTO Director John Squires personally makes all institution determinations in IPR and PGR cases, and routine institution decisions are issued as summary notices without written explanations of the reasoning. Therefore, a specific panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) was not assigned to make the institution decision for this IPR.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent 9516909. Specific prior art and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103) were likely detailed in the petition, but the discretionary denial means the Board did not assess these on their merits.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-12-23. The denial was discretionary, meaning the Director chose not to institute the review. This type of denial often occurs due to factors such as parallel district court litigation or other policy considerations, particularly with the USPTO Director's increased control over institution decisions in late 2025 leading to a significant increase in discretionary denials.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found. Institution decisions are generally final and non-appealable.
• Defensive value: Since institution was denied, all claims (1-20) of US9516909 remain unchallenged by this IPR. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been weakened by this specific PTAB challenge, and a future IPR-based defense would need to address the likely procedural reasons for the discretionary denial, potentially presenting new arguments or prior art.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-20) of US Patent 9516909 are SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits through PTAB proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01033, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the Board did not reach the merits of the patentability challenge. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or found unpatentable through PTAB review.

The estoppel landscape is minimal for future petitioners due to the discretionary denial. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), estoppel generally applies where a final written decision is issued, or where the petitioner raised or could have reasonably raised a ground during a trial that resulted in a final written decision. Since no trial was instituted and no final written decision was issued, the petitioner (REVELYST SALES LLC et al.) and their privies are not formally estopped from raising the same or similar prior art grounds against the patent in subsequent proceedings. However, the precedent of discretionary denials, especially under the USPTO Director's increased scrutiny of institution decisions in late 2025, suggests that repeated petitions challenging the same patent might face similar procedural hurdles. For a new defendant, most prior-art grounds are still theoretically available for a future PTAB challenge.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against this patent to date, and it was denied institution. This does not indicate a pattern of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner or involvement of defensive aggregators. However, the presence of ongoing district court litigation (8:24-cv-02652 in California Central District Court and 3:26-mc-80147 in California Northern District Court) might have influenced the PTAB's discretionary denial. The PTAB often considers the advanced stage of parallel litigation when deciding whether to institute an IPR, particularly under the Fintiv factors.

Recommended next steps

If a defendant is currently facing assertion of US Patent 9516909, it is important to understand that all claims remain intact from a PTAB perspective.

• Review the specific reasoning provided in the PTAB's Decision on Institution for IPR2025-01033. While routine decisions may be summary, any detailed reasoning for the discretionary denial will be crucial for assessing the viability of any future PTAB challenge. The decision should be available on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), which replaced PTAB E2E.
• If considering a new PTAB challenge, analyze the prior art carefully and develop arguments that address any implicit or explicit concerns raised in the denial decision of IPR2025-01033. Consider whether new prior art or different arguments could lead to a different outcome, especially in light of the evolving PTAB institution policies as of late 2025, which have made institution more challenging.
• Given the active district court litigation, a defendant should also evaluate how PTAB strategy integrates with the ongoing court proceedings, particularly regarding any potential for a stay of litigation if an IPR were to be instituted. The recent policy changes at the PTAB, including the proposed rules barring parallel challenges, could impact such strategies.

Inventors

• Robert T. Knight (Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at UC Berkeley, and Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at UC San Francisco).

Original assignee

The original assignee named on US9516909B2 is Brainguard Technologies Inc. Brainguard Technologies Inc. (also referred to as BrainGuard LLC) is an operating company focused on designing multi-layered helmets to protect against rotational shear forces, a major contributor to traumatic brain injury (TBI) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). They have developed prototype helmets for various sports (bicycling, baseball, football, hockey, snow sports) and industrial safety. As of March 2020, their helmets were not yet available for purchase, with talks ongoing for potential partnerships, and testing by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment slated to begin in Spring 2020. Their products are currently being developed, focusing on smart helmet systems that detect biking, helmet usage, and proper wear. Brainguard Technologies Inc. appears to be an active, operating company, with ongoing development and patents.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows no recorded assignments for US Patent 9516909. This means that Brainguard Technologies Inc. remains the current assignee of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9516909
    2011 : Priority Date
    2016 : Filed by Brainguard Technologies Inc
    2016 : Issued to Brainguard Technologies Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There are no recorded transfers for this patent. Brainguard Technologies Inc. appears to be an operating company developing helmet technology.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. There are no recorded transfers, so no known asserters are in the chain. Brainguard Technologies Inc. is the original and current assignee.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. No assignment chain exists.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. No assignment chain exists.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment transfers are recorded, and the current litigation appears to be initiated by the original assignee, Brainguard Technologies, Inc.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of Brainguard Technologies Inc. being in bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. There is no explicit evidence of privateering, but it cannot be definitively ruled out without further information on any agreements between Brainguard Technologies Inc. and other entities.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently held by Brainguard Technologies Inc., which is actively involved in litigation, indicating an assertive rather than defensive posture.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The patent US9516909 remains assigned to the original assignee, Brainguard Technologies Inc., with no recorded transfers in the USPTO Assignment Center. Brainguard Technologies Inc. is an operating company engaged in developing and commercializing helmet technology designed to prevent brain injuries. They are also actively asserting this patent in district court litigation against alleged infringers.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US9516909: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?pno=US9516909B2

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9516909, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent document itself. These sections list the patents and non-patent literature that the examiner considered relevant during prosecution, and also patents that have subsequently cited US9516909. For this task, I will focus on the "Citations" section, as these are the prior art references that were explicitly considered during the examination of US9516909.

Here's an analysis of the prior art cited in US Patent 9516909, along with a brief description and potential anticipation for each. It's important to note that a full anticipation analysis would typically require a detailed claim construction and comparison, but I'll provide a high-level assessment based on the descriptions.

The patent document for US9516909B2 lists the following "Citations" (prior art references cited by the examiner):

1. US3946441A

• Full Citation: US3946441A, Johnson John R., "Safety helmet", published March 30, 1976.
• Description: This patent describes a safety helmet. The details provided in the US9516909 document's abstract for this reference are limited.
• Potential Anticipation: Without further description of US3946441A's specific mechanisms, it's difficult to pinpoint direct anticipation. However, as a general "safety helmet," it likely addresses basic protective shell and lining concepts, potentially anticipating aspects of claims 1 and 12 related to having an outer protective shell/layer and a liner layer.

2. US4352484A

• Full Citation: US4352484A, Energy Absorption Systems, Inc., "Shear action and compression energy absorber", published October 5, 1982.
• Description: This patent describes a shear action and compression energy absorber.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference directly addresses "shear action" and "compression energy absorption," which are key functions of the "first energy transformer layer associated with a shear mechanism" in claims 1 and 12 of US9516909. Depending on the specific implementation described in US4352484A, it could potentially anticipate the shear mechanism allowing relative sliding, or the function of absorbing impact forces, for claims 1 and 12.

3. US5713082A

• Full Citation: US5713082A, A.V.E., "Sports helmet", published February 3, 1998.
• Description: This patent describes a sports helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to US3946441A, as a general "sports helmet," it likely covers fundamental helmet structures (shells, liners). It could potentially anticipate the broader elements of claims 1 and 12, such as an outer protective shell/layer, an inner protective shell/layer, and a liner layer.

4. US5815846A

• Full Citation: US5815846A, Tecno-Fluidos, S.L., "Resistant helmet assembly", published October 6, 1998.
• Description: US9516909 provides a summary of this patent: "An impact resistant helmet assembly having a first material layer coupled to a second material layer so as to define a gas chamber therebetween which contains a quantity that provides impact dampening upon an impact force being applied to the helmet assembly. The helmet assembly further includes a containment layer disposed over the second material layer and structured to define a fluid chamber in which a quantity of fluid is disposed. The fluid includes a generally viscous gel structured to provide some resistance against disbursement from an impacted region of the fluid chamber to non-impacted regions of the fluid chamber, thereby further enhance the impact distribution and dampening of the impact force provided by the helmet assembly.”
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant as it describes a multi-layer helmet with fluid chambers for impact dampening and distribution, specifically mentioning a viscous gel for resistance against disbursement. This directly addresses the concept of an "energy transformer layer" and potentially the use of "gels" or "fluids" as part of the shear mechanism as described in claims 1 and 12 of US9516909, and the associated dependent claims that specify such materials (e.g., "first absorptive/dissipative material"). The fluid/gel layer could potentially allow for relative movement, thus anticipating aspects of the shear mechanism.

5. US6103641A

• Full Citation: US6103641A, Gehring Textiles Inc, "Blunt trauma reduction fabric for body armor", published August 15, 2000.
• Description: This patent describes a blunt trauma reduction fabric for body armor.
• Potential Anticipation: While not a helmet, this reference discusses blunt trauma reduction, which is a general protective function. If the fabric described has properties that could be adapted for use in a helmet's energy transformer layer, particularly for impact absorption or dissipation, it could potentially anticipate certain material aspects of the energy transformer layers in claims 1 and 12, especially those related to absorptive/dissipative materials (e.g., dependent claim 2 or 13).

6. WO2001045526A1

• Full Citation: WO2001045526A1, Neuroprevention Scandinavia Ab, "Protective helmet", published June 28, 2001.
• Description: This patent describes a protective helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to other general helmet patents, this reference could anticipate the basic structural elements of claims 1 and 12 (outer/inner shells/layers, liner). More specific details from the WO publication would be needed for a deeper analysis of anticipation of the shear mechanism.

7. US5956777A

• Full Citation: US5956777A, Grand Slam Cards, "Helmet", published September 28, 1999.
• Description: US9516909 provides a summary of this patent: "A helmet for protecting a head by laterally displacing impact forces, said helmet comprising: a rigid inner shell formed as a single unit; a resilient spacing layer disposed outside of and in contact with said inner shell; and an articulated shell having a plurality of discrete rigid segments disposed outside of and in contact with said resilient spacing layer and a plurality of resilient members which couple adjacent ones of said rigid segments to one another.”
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant as it describes a helmet with an "articulated shell having a plurality of discrete rigid segments" and a "resilient spacing layer." The concept of "laterally displacing impact forces" and the articulated/segmented outer shell suggests a mechanism for relative movement or force redirection, which could directly anticipate aspects of the shear mechanism in claims 1 and 12 allowing the outer shell/layer to slide relative to the inner.

8. US6145348A

• Full Citation: US6145348A, Tietex International, Inc., "Fabric and process and apparatus for producing same", published November 14, 2000.
• Description: This patent describes a fabric and a process/apparatus for producing it.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference appears to be more focused on material manufacturing. Without specific details on the fabric's properties relating to impact absorption, shear reduction, or its use in a multi-layered protective gear, direct anticipation of the core claims of US9516909 is less apparent. However, it could potentially anticipate materials used in the layers if the fabric is suitable for such applications.

9. US6434755B1

• Full Citation: US6434755B1, Southern Impact Research Center, Llc, "Helmet", published August 20, 2002.
• Description: US9516909 provides a summary of this patent: "a football helmet with liner sections of different thicknesses and densities. The thicker, softer sections would handle less intense impacts, crushing down until the thinner, harder sections take over to prevent bottoming out.”
• Potential Anticipation: This patent describes a helmet with liner sections of varying thicknesses and densities for impact management. While it focuses on "liner sections" rather than a separate outer/inner shell sliding mechanism, the concept of managing impacts through varied material properties in layers could be broadly relevant to the energy transformer layers of US9516909. It might anticipate the idea of different materials or structures within a layer for impact absorption (e.g., dependent claim 2 or 13 if the "absorptive/dissipative material" includes varying densities).

10. US6658671B1

• Full Citation: US6658671B1, Neuroprevention Scandinavia Ab, "Protective helmet", published December 9, 2003.
• Description: This patent describes a protective helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to other general helmet patents, this reference could anticipate the basic structural elements of claims 1 and 12 (outer/inner shells/layers, liner). More specific details from the patent would be needed for a deeper analysis of anticipation of the shear mechanism.

11. US20030088906A1

• Full Citation: US20030088906A1, Baker Gregg S., "Head stabilizing system", published May 15, 2003.
• Description: This patent describes a head stabilizing system.
• Potential Anticipation: "Head stabilizing" suggests mechanisms that might limit movement or absorb forces, which could be broadly related to the function of protective gear. Depending on the specific mechanisms used for stabilization, it could potentially anticipate elements of the energy transformer layers or the overall securing function of the helmet in claims 1 and 12.

12. US6378140B1

• Full Citation: US6378140B1, Carl J. Abraham, "Impact and energy absorbing product for helmets and protective gear", published April 30, 2002.
• Description: This patent describes an impact and energy absorbing product for helmets and protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is directly relevant to "impact and energy absorbing" elements in protective gear. It could potentially anticipate the "first energy transformer layer" and its function of absorbing impact forces as described in claims 1 and 12. The specific mechanisms for energy absorption would determine if it anticipates the shear mechanism for relative sliding.

13. US20040126565A1

• Full Citation: US20040126565A1, Ganapathy Naganathan, "Actively controlled impact elements", published July 1, 2004.
• Description: This patent describes actively controlled impact elements.
• Potential Anticipation: The concept of "actively controlled impact elements" could potentially anticipate some of the advanced features mentioned in the description of US9516909 for the energy and impact transformer layers, such as "electro-rheological elements" or "magneto-rheological elements" (though these specific elements are not explicitly claimed in claims 1 or 12, they are discussed in the patent's description as possible implementations). If the active control allows for a change in viscosity or similar properties that enable relative sliding upon impact, it could anticipate aspects of the shear mechanism.

14. US6996856B2

• Full Citation: US6996856B2, Puchalski Ione G, "Protective head covering having impact absorbing crumple zone", published February 14, 2006.
• Description: This patent describes a protective head covering having an impact absorbing crumple zone.
• Potential Anticipation: The term "impact absorbing crumple zone" strongly suggests a mechanism for dissipating energy upon impact. This could anticipate the energy absorption aspect of the "first energy transformer layer" in claims 1 and 12. The "crumple" action might also involve deformation or relative movement that could be seen as anticipating aspects of the shear mechanism.

15. US7076811B2

• Full Citation: US7076811B2, Puchalski Ione G, "Protective head covering having impact absorbing crumple or shear zone", published July 18, 2006.
• Description: US9516909 provides a summary of this patent: "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. Upon impact to the helmet, there are sequential stages of movement of the panels relative to each other, these movements initially being recoverable, but with sufficient vector forces the helmet undergoes structural changes in a pre-determined fashion, so that the recoverable and permanent movements cumulatively provide a protective ‘crumple zone’ or ‘shear zone’.”
• Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant and likely a very strong piece of prior art. It explicitly describes a multi-panel shell where panels "move relative to one another" upon impact to dissipate forces and create a "shear zone." This directly anticipates the "outer protective shell" and "inner protective shell" (or layers), and critically, 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" as defined in claims 1 and 12 of US9516909. The description of recoverable and permanent movements for energy dissipation also aligns with the function of the energy transformer. This reference could anticipate claims 1 and 12 entirely, and also dependent claims describing the nature of the shear mechanism (e.g., if the panel movement acts like conical structures, truss-like structures, etc.).

16. WO2004032659A1

• Full Citation: WO2004032659A1, Madey Steven M, "Head protective devices", published April 22, 2004.
• Description: This patent describes head protective devices.
• Potential Anticipation: As a general "head protective device," this could broadly anticipate the structural elements of a helmet in claims 1 and 12. Specifics would be needed to determine if it anticipates the shear mechanism.

17. US7254843B2

• Full Citation: US7254843B2, Srikrishna Talluri, "Impact absorbing, modular helmet", published August 14, 2007.
• Description: This patent describes an impact absorbing, modular helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: "Impact absorbing" directly relates to the function of the "first energy transformer layer" in claims 1 and 12. The "modular" aspect might suggest separable components that could be construed as layers. Specifics of the impact absorbing mechanism would be crucial to determine anticipation of the shear mechanism.

18. US20080066217A1

• Full Citation: US20080066217A1, Bart Depreitere, "Protective Helmet", published March 20, 2008.
• Description: This patent describes a protective helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to other general helmet patents, this reference could anticipate the basic structural elements of claims 1 and 12 (outer/inner shells/layers, liner). More specific details from the patent would be needed for a deeper analysis of anticipation of the shear mechanism.

19. US20060059605A1

• Full Citation: US20060059605A1, Xenith Athletics, Inc., "Layered construction of protective headgear with one or more compressible layers of thermoplastic elastomer material", published March 23, 2006.
• Description: This patent describes a layered construction of protective headgear with one or more compressible layers of thermoplastic elastomer material.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant as it explicitly describes "layered construction of protective headgear" with "compressible layers." The term "compressible layers" indicates an energy-absorbing function. While it doesn't explicitly state "sliding" for shear reduction, if the compressible layers allow for some form of relative movement or deformation that dissipates shear forces, it could anticipate aspects of the "first energy transformer layer" in claims 1 and 12 and the use of absorptive/dissipative materials (dependent claims).

20. US20110004980A1

• Full Citation: US20110004980A1, Leatt Brace Holdings (Pty) Limited, "Helmet", published January 13, 2011.
• Description: This patent describes a helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to other general helmet patents, this reference could anticipate the basic structural elements of claims 1 and 12 (outer/inner shells/layers, liner). More specific details from the patent would be needed for a deeper analysis of anticipation of the shear mechanism.

21. US8176574B2

• Full Citation: US8176574B2, Voz Corp Pty Ltd, "Protective helmet", published May 15, 2012.
• Description: This patent describes a protective helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to other general helmet patents, this reference could anticipate the basic structural elements of claims 1 and 12 (outer/inner shells/layers, liner). More specific details from the patent would be needed for a deeper analysis of anticipation of the shear mechanism.

22. US8533869B1

• Full Citation: US8533869B1, Noggin Group LLC, "Energy absorbing helmet underwear", published September 17, 2013.
• Description: This patent describes energy absorbing helmet underwear.
• Potential Anticipation: While it describes "helmet underwear" rather than the helmet itself, the concept of "energy absorbing" material is relevant to the "first energy transformer layer" in claims 1 and 12. Depending on the construction and placement of this "underwear," it could potentially anticipate the liner layer or the absorptive/dissipative materials within the transformer layers.

23. US8104593B2

• Full Citation: US8104593B2, Keng-Hsien Lin, "Resilient shock-absorbing device", published January 31, 2012.
• Description: This patent describes a resilient shock-absorbing device.
• Potential Anticipation: "Resilient shock-absorbing device" directly relates to the function of the "first energy transformer layer" in claims 1 and 12. The specific construction of this device would determine if it anticipates the shear mechanism for relative sliding or the specific types of structures mentioned in dependent claims (e.g., conical, truss-like).

24. SE1050905A1 / WO2011087435A1

• Full Citation: SE1050905A1, Mips Ab, "Intermediate layers of friction-reducing material", published July 14, 2011. (This appears to be the national phase equivalent of WO2011087435A1).
• Full Citation: WO2011087435A1, Mips Ab, "Intermediate layer of friction decreasing material", published July 21, 2011.
• Description: These patents describe intermediate layers of friction-reducing or friction-decreasing material.
• Potential Anticipation: These references are highly relevant. The concept of "intermediate layers of friction-reducing material" or "friction decreasing material" directly anticipates the core mechanism of the "shear mechanism" that "allows the outer protective shell to slide relative to the inner protective shell" as claimed in claims 1 and 12 of US9516909. The purpose of such friction-reducing layers is explicitly to allow relative movement between helmet components to reduce rotational forces, which is a primary objective of US9516909. This could anticipate claims 1 and 12 entirely, and potentially dependent claims related to the nature of the absorptive/dissipative material if the friction-reducing material also serves that purpose.

25. US20130239397A1

• Full Citation: US20130239397A1, Centre De Recherche Industrielle Du Quebec, "Apparatus and Method for Inserting a Component Through the Surface of a Workpiece", published September 19, 2013.
• Description: This patent describes an apparatus and method for inserting a component through the surface of a workpiece.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference appears to relate to manufacturing processes rather than the protective helmet structure itself. It is unlikely to anticipate any of the structural or functional claims of US9516909 directly.

26. WO2012109381A1

• Full Citation: WO2012109381A1, Innovation Dynamics LLC, "Helmet omnidirectional energy management systems", published August 16, 2012.
• Description: This patent describes helmet omnidirectional energy management systems.
• Potential Anticipation: "Omnidirectional energy management systems" strongly suggests mechanisms for handling forces from various directions, including rotational and shear forces. This could anticipate the function of the "first energy transformer layer" in claims 1 and 12 to absorb impact, rotational, and shear forces, and potentially the mechanism allowing relative sliding.

27. US20130019384A1

• Full Citation: US20130019384A1, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware protective gear", published January 24, 2013.
• Description: This patent describes biomechanics aware protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation: This is a related patent application from the same assignee (Brainguard Technologies, Inc.) and shares a similar title, indicating it's part of the same patent family and likely discloses very similar or foundational concepts. It is explicitly listed as a priority document for US9516909. Therefore, it would likely anticipate the core concepts of claims 1-20 if its publication predates the critical date of US9516909 (which it does, as US9516909 claims priority to it). This reference would be highly relevant for anticipating all claims.

28. WO2013013180A1

• Full Citation: WO2013013180A1, Robert Knight, "Biomechanics aware protective gear", published January 24, 2013.
• Description: This patent describes biomechanics aware protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation: This is another related patent application by the inventor (Robert Knight) and shares a similar title, also listed as a priority document. Similar to US20130019384A1, this reference would be highly relevant for anticipating all claims of US9516909 due to its familial relationship and earlier publication/priority.

29. EP2734071A1

• Full Citation: EP2734071A1, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware protective gear", published May 28, 2014.
• Description: This patent describes biomechanics aware protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation: Another related patent from the same assignee, sharing a similar title, and part of the same patent family. This would be highly relevant for anticipating claims 1-20.

30. US8863319B2

• Full Citation: US8863319B2, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware protective gear", published October 21, 2014.
• Description: This patent describes biomechanics aware protective gear. US9516909 explicitly states it claims priority to US application Ser. No. 13/554,471, entitled BIOMECHANICS AWARE PROTECTIVE GEAR, filed Jul. 20, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,863,319.
• Potential Anticipation: This is the direct parent patent to US9516909, meaning US9516909 is a continuation of an application that matured into US8863319B2. Therefore, US8863319B2 would disclose substantially the same subject matter and would anticipate all claims of US9516909 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

31. US20150000014A1

• Full Citation: US20150000014A1, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware helmet", published January 1, 2015.
• Description: This patent describes a biomechanics aware helmet.
• Potential Anticipation: Another related application from the same assignee, sharing a similar title, and part of the same patent family. This would be highly relevant for anticipating claims 1-20.

32. US9060561B2

• Full Citation: US9060561B2, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware helmet", published June 23, 2015.
• Description: This patent describes a biomechanics aware helmet. US9516909 explicitly states it claims priority to US application Ser. No. 14/485,993, entitled BIOMECHANICS AWARE HELMET, filed Sep. 15, 2014, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,060,561.
• Potential Anticipation: This is another direct parent patent to US9516909, meaning US9516909 is a continuation of an application that matured into US9060561B2. Therefore, US9060561B2 would disclose substantially the same subject matter and would anticipate all claims of US9516909 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

33. US20150245681A1

• Full Citation: US20150245681A1, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware protective gear", published September 3, 2015.
• Description: This patent describes biomechanics aware protective gear.
• Potential Anticipation: Another related application from the same assignee, sharing a similar title, and part of the same patent family. This would be highly relevant for anticipating claims 1-20.

34. US9271536B2

• Full Citation: US9271536B2, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., "Biomechanics aware protective gear", published March 1, 2016.
• Description: This patent describes biomechanics aware protective gear. US9516909 explicitly states it claims priority to US application Ser. No. 14/714,093, entitled BIOMECHANICS AWARE PROTECTIVE GEAR, filed May 15, 2015, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,271,536.
• Potential Anticipation: This is another direct parent patent to US9516909, meaning US9516909 is a continuation of an application that matured into US9271536B2. Therefore, US9271536B2 would disclose substantially the same subject matter and would anticipate all claims of US9516909 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

35. DE102011086791A1

• Full Citation: DE102011086791A1, Continental Automotive Gmbh, "Closing method for closing bore of workpiece using bore closing device, involves placing bore in workpiece, where bore in area of workpiece near to surface has bigger diameter than in area of workpiece away from surface", published May 23, 2013.
• Description: This patent describes a closing method for a bore of a workpiece.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference appears to be entirely unrelated to protective helmets or energy absorption. It is highly unlikely to anticipate any claims of US9516909.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

Based on the descriptions, the most relevant prior art references that explicitly or strongly suggest anticipation of the core claims of US9516909 (specifically claims 1 and 12 regarding a shear mechanism allowing relative sliding between helmet layers) are:

• US7076811B2 (Puchalski): Explicitly describes a multi-panel shell where panels "move relative to one another" to create a "shear zone" for dissipating impact forces. This directly addresses the fundamental concept of relative sliding for shear reduction.
• US5956777A (Popovich): Describes an "articulated shell having a plurality of discrete rigid segments" and a "resilient spacing layer" for "laterally displacing impact forces." This also suggests mechanisms for relative movement to manage forces.
• US5815846A (Calonge): Describes a multi-layer helmet with fluid chambers containing viscous gel for impact dampening and distribution, which could facilitate relative movement between layers.
• SE1050905A1 / WO2011087435A1 (Mips Ab): Describes "intermediate layers of friction-reducing material" to allow relative movement and reduce rotational forces. This is a very strong antecedent for the shear mechanism allowing relative sliding.
• US20060059605A1 (Xenith Athletics, Inc.): Describes "layered construction of protective headgear with one or more compressible layers" which, depending on their nature, could contribute to relative movement or shear force dissipation.
• US8863319B2, US9060561B2, US9271536B2, US20130019384A1, WO2013013180A1, EP2734071A1, US20150000014A1, US20150245681A1: These are all continuation applications or parent patents within the same patent family as US9516909. They would inherently anticipate the subject matter of US9516909 as they disclose substantially the same invention, building upon earlier priority dates.

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.

For US Patent 9516909, here's a detailed breakdown of its patent term, family members, and projected expiration:

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

• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): PTA is designed to compensate patentees for delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a patent application. This can add days to the standard 20-year patent term. The specific PTA for US9516909 is not detailed in the provided information, and the USPTO does not calculate expiration dates for patents, but provides a calculator as a resource.
• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): PTE is available under 35 U.S.C. § 156 for delays due to premarket regulatory review, typically for pharmaceutical products. There is no indication in the patent document or provided information that US9516909 is eligible for or has received any PTE.

Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members

US Patent 9516909 is part of a larger patent family, demonstrating a strategy of maintaining protection through continuation applications. A patent granted on a continuation or divisional application filed after June 8, 1995, has a term that ends 20 years from the filing date of the earliest application for which a benefit is claimed.

US9516909 is a continuation of and claims benefit to the following applications:

• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/927,093, filed Oct. 29, 2015, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,289,022.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/809,142, filed Jul. 24, 2015, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,414,635.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/714,093, filed May 15, 2015, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,271,536.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/485,993, filed Sep. 15, 2014, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,060,561.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 13/554,471, filed Jul. 20, 2012, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,863,319.
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/510,401, filed on Jul. 21, 2011 (priority date).

Other related family members, including continuation and divisional applications, are noted in the patent document:

• Priority Applications (claiming priority to the same 2011-07-21 date):
  • US15/050,357 (US9516909B2 itself)
  • US15/202,173 (US9723889B2 - Biomechanics aware headgear)
  • US15/348,757 (US9750296B2 - Biomechanics aware headgear)
  • US15/631,713 (US20170280809A1 - Biomechanics aware headgear)
  • US15/784,486 (US10716352B2 - Visual and audio indicator of shear impact force on protective gear)
  • US15/832,578 (US20180092422A1 - Biomechanics aware headgear)
• Applications Claiming Priority (parent applications from which US9516909 directly or indirectly claims priority):
  • US201161510401P (Provisional application)
  • US13/554,471 (US8863319B2 - Biomechanics aware protective gear)
  • US14/485,993 (US9060561B2 - Biomechanics aware helmet)
  • US14/714,093 (US9271536B2 - Biomechanics aware protective gear)
  • US14/809,142 (US9414635B2 - Biomechanics aware helmet)
  • US14/927,093 (US9289022B2 - Biomechanics aware helmet)
  • US15/050,357 (US9516909B2 itself)
• Related Parent Applications:
  • US14/927,093 (Continuation of this application)
• Related Child Applications (continuation or divisional applications derived from the same priority chain):
  • US13/554,471 (Continuation - US8863319B2)
  • US15/202,173 (Continuation - US9723889B2)
  • US15/348,757 (Continuation - US9750296B2)

Projected Expiration Date

The patent states a "Priority date" of July 21, 2011, and an "Anticipated expiration" date of July 20, 2032.

Under U.S. patent law, for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term generally expires 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. Since US9516909 claims benefit to applications with a priority date of July 21, 2011, the base 20-year term would typically end on July 21, 2031.

However, the "Anticipated expiration" date listed in the patent document as July 20, 2032, indicates that there has been a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) of approximately one year (specifically, 365 days or close to it, if calculated from July 21, 2031). This adjustment would account for delays by the USPTO during prosecution.