Patent Grant
10494761
The invention relates to flocked core spacer fabrics for flexible impact energy absorbing panels and flexible impact energy absorbing panels having enhanced Impact Force Absorbing (IFA) properties.
The need for energy absorbing padding to cushion mechanical impact loads is present in many environments. For example, personal protection equipment such as sport, military and construction helmets, shin guards and body part protectors typically include some form of cushioning layer.
Other environments where high impact forces are present are those involving body armor. For example, bulletproof vests typically are fabricated from polyaramid (Kevlar®), polyolefin fibers, woven or mat fabrics having high impact and cut resistance. When struck by a blunt projectile, these vests and similar clothing can impress a direct force on the wearer's body area that, while potentially life-saving, can cause significant bodily bruising and/or a bone fracturing injury.
Flocked Energy Absorbing Material (FEAM) Impact Force Absorbing (IFA) structures have been found to be effective IFA materials for Sport, Military and Civil Servant apparel and equipment applications. Thus far it has been observed that FEAM materials are generally not as effective in their IFA properties as comparable thickness of presently used foam (Vinyl Nitrile and Polyurethane) IFA materials.
It would be an advantageous if FEAM structures had higher impact force absorbtion. It would also be advantageous that these improved IFA structures were easily manufactured. The inventors of the present application have discovered a surprising method for increasing the IFA properties of the FEAM structures as described below.
In one embodiment, an enhanced energy absorbing structure includes a substrate, a plurality of monofilament flock fibers, each having first and second ends, the fibers being attached, at their first ends to a surface of the substrate with the second ends of the fibers extending away from the substrate, and a surface coating applied to a surface of the plurality of monofilament flock fibers adjacent to the first end. Such a structure provides enhanced IFA properties for FEAM structures.
In a further embodiment, the enhanced energy and force absorbing structure includes a divider fabric bonded to the second ends of the plurality of monofilament flock fibers. In one embodiment, the divider fabric is a resinous surface coated divider fabric. In still another embodiment, the enhanced force absorbing structure includes a cover fabric surrounding the substrate and the plurality of monofilament flock fibers. The cover fabric includes, in one embodiment, a micro-suede cover fabric and the cover fabric can be perimeter sewn, for example, using loose through-stitch sewing.
In various embodiments, the surface coating includes, a silicone based water repellent resin spray-on coating, a flat finish polyurethane based varnish spray, a gloss finish varnish spray, a semi-gloss finish varnish spray, a water based acrylic varnish spray coating or a pigmented spray paint with nano-silica or alumina particles (e.g., alumina powder) and water based acrylic adhesives or coatings.
In still another embodiment, the enhanced energy absorbing structure further includes a second substrate disposed adjacent to the second ends of the plurality of monofilament flock fibers, a second plurality of monofilament flock fibers, each having first and second ends, the fibers being attached, at their first ends to a surface of the second substrate with the second ends of the fibers extending away from the second substrate, a surface coating applied to the second plurality of monofilament flock fibers and the surface coating can be applied on a portion of each of the second plurality of monofilament flock fibers adjacent to the first end. Embodiments of the enhanced energy absorbing structure include fibers having a fiber length of about 1 mm to about 7.5 mm, and denier of about 15 denier to about 100 denier. In another embodiment, the fiber enhanced energy absorbing structure the surface coating is a resin or a water based polymeric emulsion, and the surface coating can also include a silica or alumina particle friction enhancing component.
A technique for treating a fiber surface to enhance impact energy absorption includes flocking a plurality of fibers onto a substrate, coating a portion of first ends of the plurality of flock fibers with a surface coating and curing the surface coating. The technique further includes coating the plurality of fibers with a surface coating. The technique further includes coating the plurality of fibers with a surface coating after flocking the fibers onto the substrate.
The technique further includes coating an adhesive onto a divider fabric to form a surface coated impregnated divider fabric, placing the still fluid and uncured surface coated impregnated divider fabric between layers and in contact with flock fiber ends of at least two flocked fiber substrates while the adhesive is still fluid and curing the adhesive. The technique further includes loose through-stitch sewing the at least two layers. The technique further includes adhesively bonding unattached ends of the plurality of flock fibers to the impregnated divider fabric. The technique further includes wrapping the layers in micro-suede cover fabric and sewing the perimeter of the micro-suede cover fabric to envelop the assembled layers.
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following more particular description of embodiments of the invention, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings and figures in which like reference characters refer to the same parts throughout the different views. The drawings are not necessarily to scale, with emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the embodiments, principles and concepts of the invention. These and other features of the invention will be understood from the description and claims herein, taken together with the drawings of illustrative embodiments, wherein:
Improved Impact Force Absorption (IFA) treated flock structures are provided, in one embodiment, by applying a resin coating to the flock fibers of a FEAM panel structure. At least two factors are responsible for the enhanced IFA properties: (a) the increase in frictional properties and enhanced inter-fiber entanglement of the flock fiber when these fibers are deformed during compression “impact” straining, and (b) the added resin coating around the individual flock fibers which stiffens the deforming flock fibers.
Now referring to
In one embodiment, the surfaces of the plurality of monofilament fibers 112 are coated with an externally applied surface finish and the thickness of the surface coating is generally about 0.05 mm to about 0.2 mm. The surface coating includes, but is not limited to, pigments having silica or alumina particles in the coating media (spray or dipping into a suspension/emulsion). The surface coating can be applied, for example, by dipping the flocked fibers in an emulsion or suspension of either water based or solvent based system.
In another embodiment, the applied surface coating has a thickness which depends on the denier of the plurality of monofilament fibers 112. For fibers 112 having a denier of about 2 to about 20 is the surface coating is generally about 1 to about 5 micrometers, and for fibers 112 having a denier of about 20 to about 100 the surface coating is generally about 5 to about 10 micrometers. In various embodiments a fiber density can be about 20 fibers per square mm (e.g., 100 denier fibers) to about 300 fibers per square mm (e.g., three denier fibers)
In one embodiment, a resinous coating is applied to the flocked surface using a brush or roller or a dipping technique. In order to deposit the proper amount of resin onto the flock fibers the resinous coating diluted with solvent and then the solvent is allowed to evaporate during the cure or setting of the coating. Dilution of these coatings with solvent (or water in water based resin coatings) will depend on the viscosity of the original resin coating. Dilutions of about 1:1 up to about 5:1 based on solvent to original resin coating concentration ratio are permissible. Generally the resin content of a coating is between about 15% and about 30% resinous solids by weight.
Now referring to
Now referring to
Now referring to
In one embodiment, the resin modified FEAM configuration shown in
Now referring to
It is understood that the enhanced Impact Force Absorbing (IFA) structure can include multiple layers of both single sided and double sided flocked layers in combination with divider fabrics and cover fabric. Embodiments of these configurations are described below along with Impact force loss test results. The following nomenclature is used below in describing the IFA enhanced energy absorbing structure s: Here the FXyyz-f[D] [P] notation refers to “FX”=Flocked Experimental, “ yy” refers to a yy Denier flock fiber used; “z” designates the flock fiber type and “D” refers to a Double-side flocked panel. The added “P” represents that the FEAM panel has been perforated with holes. The flock fiber type is determined as follows: Z=1 for Polyester (PET) fiber, Z=2 for Nylon fiber. “//” indicates that a divider fabric is being used and where it is positioned.
Three (3) FX201-2D Double-side flocked FEAM elements were assembled with a divider fabric between the first and third FEAM layer. This configuration can be written as FX202-2D//FX202-2D//FX202-2D where the // notation designates the position of the divider fabric.
Three individual three layer combined FEAM panels were prepared as follows: the FX202-2D designation represents a double-side flocked FEAM configuration fabricated using 2 mm long 20 denier nylon flock. A description of some fabricated samples is presented below:
(1) Designation: 43-A FX202-2D//FX202-2D//FX202-2D—Control Panel—no treatment of divider fabric
(2) Designation: 43-B FX202-2D//cFX202-2D//cFX202-2D—Divider fabric (continuously) bonded to tops of flocked surfaces of FEAM (inner elements) using water based acrylic adhesive coating.
(3) Designation: 43-C FX202-2D//cFX202-2D//cFX202-2D—Divider fabric (continuously) bonded to tops of flocked surfaces of FEAM (inner elements) using a solvent based, flexible textile adhesive.
Both samples 43-B and 43-C were prepared by coating the adhesive coating onto the divider fabric and while the adhesive was still fluid (not cured) this resin impregnated divider fabric was placed between the inner FEAM layers. This assembly was then allowed to set overnight under light contact pressure to assure the adhesive bonding of the divider fabric to the tops of the flocked surfaces of the FEAM elements. After curing, all three of these multi-layer panels were wrapped in micro-suede cover fabric and perimeter sewn and were readied for impact testing.
These above samples were all tested by University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD's) Ball Drop test where balls of various diameter and weight are dropped onto the panels that have been place on a flat metal support plate. This support plate is attached to the top of a PASCO force table where the “hit” force generated by the falling ball is recorded. In this measurement, the Impact Force Absorption (IFA) properties of the panel are recorded as the Force Loss % (FL %). This per cent value is determined relative to the peak “hit” force when no sample is on the force table platform. Using this test, FL % values for the three samples described above are reported in Table 1. From this we see that the FL % values for the two bonded divider fabric test samples (43-B and 43-C) have higher FL % values than the Control (43-A). These data provide an indication of the ability of the internally bonded to the flocked surface FEAM panels to enhance the IFA properties of a FEAM panel structure.
Abbreviations and Properties Ball Drop Projectiles
Table 1 Conclusions:
As a follow-on to Example #1, experiments were carried out to determine and comparing IFA effects of laying together single side flocked FEAM panels with and without inter-layer ply bonding. In these experiments a quantity of a black “twill” fabric panels were prepared by flocking 45 denier, 3 mm long flock fibers on one side (only). Using the UMD nomenclature scheme these panels can be designated as FX451-3S. Using these FX451-3S panels, two ten (10) layer test specimens were fabricated. One specimen was assembled by layering ten (10) elements together with no divider fabric and no between layer adhesive. Note that with such an assembly divider fabric is not needed, since the back side of the one-side flocked panel serves as the non-penetrating flock surface for the (loose) ends of the contiguous flock fiber of the adjacent ply. The other ten (10) layer specimen was prepared by applying adhesive to all the contacting surfaces (flocked and facing back of the adjacent element). This constituted a panel similar to what was described in Example 1. These two panels were then tested using UMD's Guided Weight Testing (GWD) apparatus where the Force Loss Per Cent (FL %) and deceleration G value (denoted by “G”) were measured. In the engineering mechanics field, the lower the deceleration value, “G”, the better the material is in absorbing impact force and energy. The GWD involves impacting the test sample with a hemi-spherical faced (5″ diameter projection), 3.7 Kg mass projectile dropped at a height of 100 cm (one meter). The data obtained in these tests are presented in Table 2. Sample 90-B presents the non-bonded ten (10) layer specimen and sample 90-E presents the data for the bonded panel. As shown, the FL % value for the bonded specimen was about 41% higher than the non-bonded specimen. Correspondingly, the “G” value for the bonded specimen was about 26% lower than the non-bonded specimen's “G”. These data clearly illustrate the merits of the subject invention. These data show that bonding the tops of the flocked surface fibers leads to a more impact force absorption and a lower “G” value Good IFA improvement was found in these samples.
To provide additional information as to the scope of this observation, several other specimens were prepared. Table 2's sample 90-C is a ten (10) flock surface assembly employing five (5) double side flocked panels (five (5) FX451-3D elements with divider fabric between the contacting flocked surfaces. Comparing the FL % and “G” values here indicate that it makes no difference whether you use single sided or double sided flocked FEAM panels as your starting point—so long as the number of flocked layers is the same, the FL % and “G” values are just about the same. Continuing further on these experiments, another test specimen, 90-D was prepared whereby four (4) flocked layers were bonded while the other flock layers were composed of six (6) flocked surfaces contained into three (3) double side flocked panels assembled with divider fabric. Sample 90-D is basically a combination of samples 90-E and 90-C. The FL % and “G” data obtained on this “hybrid processed” sample show the improvement in IFA properties. The FL % and “G” values for this 90-D specimen lie about half way between the 90-B and the 90-E sample. This observation further demonstrates the merits of the resin coating of flocked fiber idea of this invention.
Table 2 Conclusion:
the effect of applying a resin coating to the flock fibers of a FEAM panel structure (element) on the IFA properties of this resin modified FEAM structure was evaluated. Two factors could change by doing this; (a) the frictional properties and inter-fiber rubbing of the flock fiber when these fibers are deformed during compressional “impact” straining, and (b) the added resin coating around the individual flock fibers could stiffen the flock fiber. This might be manifested by a ‘pseudo increase” by external means of increasing the ‘Apparent’ denier of flocked fiber on the FEAM structure. The denier of a flocked surface could perhaps be increased by coating each individual flock fiber with a layer of resin.
Two special FEAM panels were prepared in the context of samples 45-A and 45-B as described in Table 3. These special FEAM panels were prepared by assembling two layers of a FEAM element fabricated using a low denier (5 denier), shorter length (0.5 mm) blue colored flock fiber on one side (this is the “velvet-feel” side of the FEAM element. The “back” side of this FEAM element was flocked with 45 denier, 2 mm long PET flock fiber (this is the IFA side of the FEAM element). The UMD nomenclature of this two FEAM layer panel is presented in Table 3 as samples 45-A and 45-B. These two samples were prepared with a divider fabric between the two facing FEAM-side flocked layers but this sample had no cover wrap. One sample (45-A) had no treatment on the FEAM's flock fiber (it was as is) while panel 45-B had its FEAM flock fiber side coated with a coating of a solvent based polyurethane varnish—Minwax® clear satin spray. This varnish coating was liberally applied to each flocked surface at an approximate 0.9 g/cm2 coverage rate. Panel 45-B underwent a 24 hour curing/drying time at room temperature before testing. Testing of these samples involved the use of hitting the test sample with a 5 Kg rounded projectile from 1 meter drop height. Here the IFA data of interest are the SI (Severity Index) and “G”. The Severity Index (SI) is a threshold value for a general category of head injuries based on scientific research and published data. SI is a method for measuring a sport helmet's ability to reduce impact forces to the head, integrating acceleration over time. SI provides an accurate way to assess head injury risk that can be replicated across laboratories and under different impact scenarios.
In these Table 3 tests, the most important parameter is the deceleration “G” value. “G” is a measure of the ability of a FEAM pad material to decelerate the “G” (gravitational force) of the projectile hitting the target pad. The lower this “G” value the better an IFA material is in absorbing impact; Lower “G” values are better than high. The comparative data in Table 3 show that the measured “G” values was lower when the FEAM's flock fibers were treated/coated with the PU varnish spray coating treatment. These “G” value was lowered by about 10% compared to the standard (no resin treated flock) FEAM Control.
Table 3 shows the SI and “G” data for the two comparable FEAM layer panels with and without resin coated flocked surfaces. Table 3 clearly shows that the sample with the resin coated flock (sample 45-B) shows both a lower Severity Index and a lower “G” value. This experiment clearly demonstrates the merit of resin coating of the flock fiber in a FEAM configuration to improve the IFA of a finished layered pad product.
Table 3 Conclusion:
Spray coating of a polyurethane varnish on the flock fiber side of a “velvet” faced FEAM panel shows an improvement in the IFA properties of the two element layer FEAM panel (“G” is lower for the resin treated flock FEAM panel, 45-B, compared with the control (no resin treatment), 45-A.
Another series of experiments were carried out using FX202-2D FEAM layers as the effective IFA element. Here two layers of FX202-2D FEAM were layered together with a divider fabric in between the two layers. These panels were finally micro-sued wrapped and perimeter sewn. These panels, designated as 52-B and 52-C were subjected to the same impact test as what was used to generate the data in Table 3. In this experiment, the resin coated flock fiber FEAM panel, 52-C was subjected to three consecutive “HITS” by the 5 Kg projectile. IFA data for this experiment are presented in Table 4. First the data clearly indicate the improved IFA properties of the resin coated flock FEAM panel—compare samples 52-C with the Control, 52-B. Also, while this improved IFA property holds for three consecutive impacts, a slight decrease in IFA effectiveness was observed after the three consecutive impacts “HITS”. It is expected the in effect will “level off” after additional impacts, but the overall improvement in IFA properties of the resin treated flock FEAM panel will remain.
In some embodiments, flock surface treatments were cured at room temperature for at least 24 hours.
Table 4 Conclusion:
In view of the promising results obtained in the IFA behavior of resin treated flock shown in Tables 3 and 4, another series of tests was carried out whereby experimental FEAM panels were prepared using 45 and 20 denier flock fibers. Several FEAM panels were prepared and FL % evaluated using the Ball Drop Test. Again some of these FEAM samples, which included resin coated flock, were IFA compared to suitable Controls (no resin coated flock). One panel (44-A) was fabricated where the three FEAM element panel was prepared where the top FEAM layer had no resin coat on the flock fibers, the middle FEAM panel had a light resin varnish coat and the third (or bottom) FEAM layer had a heavy resin varnish coat. As is reported, the FL % value of this “graduated stiffness” was also increased by the presence of resin coated flock. BDT data are summarized in Table 5 where the IFA enhancing effect of resin coated flock FEAM panels is clearly demonstrated. Of interest is the result on the “graduated stiffness” panel, 44-A. Where the IFA properties of this “graduated stiffness” assembled specimen had better IFA properties than the two controls—panels 43-A and 43-D. This presents a very useful helmet pad design feature for FEAM panels.
Table 5 Conclusions:
In some new studies, we have determined the approximate amount of flock coating resin needed (by weight) to enhance a FEAM panel's IFA properties. Ball Drop Test Data in Tables 6 and 7 show that for FEAM test panels composed of 45 denier, 2 mm long flock fibers one will need at least an amount of coating of 2.5 to 6.9% (by weight) to be effective. The Force Loss per cent (FL %) values for sample 80-B (2.5% by weight coating added) and sample 80-C (6.9% by weight coating added) were over 40% higher than for the non-coated flock FEAM control panel 79-C.
Successive “Hit” Results: In some previous IFA tests (refer to Table 4) it was noted that the FL % properties of these resin coated flock FEAM panels would deteriorate after each successive “Hit” of the ball. Data are presented in Table 6 to further investigate this effect. The samples listed in Table 6 were subjected to five (5) consecutive Ball Drop “hits”. As indicated in Table 6, there is little or no discernible change in the FEAM panel's FL % upon five (5) consecutive Ball Drop “Hits”. These results differ from the data reported in Table 4. The important difference here is the fact that the data reported in Table 4 were obtained by a 5 Kg projectile. The projectile mass used to generate the Table 6 data was only 1.7 Kg at a 50 cm drop height. It is obvious that the heavy 5 Kg projectile used for the Table 4 data was damaging the FEAM panel's IFA structure. The 5 Kg mass projectile hit at 1 meter (100 cm) was quite severe compared to the impact event that occurred with the Ball Drop 1.7 Kg at a 50 cm drop height.
To better interpret Table 6 in terms of the effect of FL % of these resin coated flock FEAM panels, all the FL % data in Table 6 were averaged to generate Table 7. As shown, it appears that the concentration of resin coating on the flock fibers in one embodiment should be at least about 2.5% (by weight).
Table 6 Conclusion
The deterioration in FL % properties (Table 6) for resin coated flocked surface FEAM panels for successive “hits” was not observed. The 1.7 Kg Ball Drop projectile dropped from a height of 50 cm was not severe enough to irreversibly damage the resin coated flock FEAM internal IFA “structure.”
Conclusions for Table 7:
Ball drop data further confirms that coating the flock fibers in FEAM panels improves the FL % properties of so-fabricated panels. These data also show the coating level (by weight) should be between 2% to about 7% to get a FL % enhancement effect. It is noted that an excess of resin coating on the FEAM's flock surface is not beneficial because the heavier the flock's resin coating, the higher the areal density of the modified panel. Therefore, the preferred range of resin added to the FEAM structure is approximately about 2% to about 10% by weight.
It should be understood, however, that the foregoing description of the invention is intended to be merely illustrative thereof and that other embodiments, modifications and equivalents may be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the principles of the invention.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No.: 62/361,080 entitled “FIBER SURFACE FINISH ENHANCED FLOCKED SURFACE IMPACT ENERGY ABSORBING STRUCTURES AND MANUFACTURING,” filed Jul. 12, 2016. This application is related to U.S. patent applications having Ser. Nos.: Ser. No. 13/906,901 entitled “PANEL FOR ABSORBING MECHANICAL IMPACT ENERGY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE,” filed May 31, 2013 now U.S. Pat. No. 9,440,413 issued Sep. 13, 2016; Ser. No. 14/642,987 entitled “STRUCTURED FLOCK FIBER REINFORCED LAYER,” filed Mar. 10, 2015; and Ser. No. 15/100,674 entitled “FLEXIBLE, FIBROUS ENERGY MANAGING COMPOSITE PANELS,” filed Jun. 1, 2016. The entire teachings and contents of these Patent Applications are hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019186 | Kaiser | Oct 1935 | A |
| 2187140 | Farish et al. | Jan 1940 | A |
| 2283480 | Wilkerson | May 1942 | A |
| 2303203 | Farish et al. | Nov 1942 | A |
| 2317595 | Farish | Apr 1943 | A |
| 2362786 | Williams | Nov 1944 | A |
| 2425235 | Ferrante | Aug 1947 | A |
| 2425236 | Ferrante | Aug 1947 | A |
| 2478097 | Glanzer | Aug 1949 | A |
| 2945557 | Powers | Jul 1960 | A |
| 2999763 | Sommer | Sep 1961 | A |
| 3018845 | Powers | Jan 1962 | A |
| 3215584 | McConnell et al. | Nov 1965 | A |
| 3496054 | Baigas, Jr. | Feb 1970 | A |
| 3583890 | Klockmann | Jun 1971 | A |
| 3641976 | Corneau | Feb 1972 | A |
| 3772132 | Dulin, Jr. | Nov 1973 | A |
| 3815341 | Hamano | Jun 1974 | A |
| 3828934 | Green et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
| 3860469 | Gregorian et al. | Jan 1975 | A |
| 3961115 | Klein | Jun 1976 | A |
| 3961116 | Klein | Jun 1976 | A |
| 4016317 | Kalwaites | Apr 1977 | A |
| 4035532 | Gregorian | Jul 1977 | A |
| 4078106 | Lind | Mar 1978 | A |
| 4092246 | Kummer | May 1978 | A |
| 4246308 | Walsh | Jan 1981 | A |
| 4282051 | Terpay | Aug 1981 | A |
| 4297404 | Nguyen | Oct 1981 | A |
| 4461791 | Matsui et al. | Jun 1984 | A |
| 4622253 | Levy | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4636417 | Rasmussen | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4699818 | Evans et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4758453 | Challet et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4808458 | Watt | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4847133 | Foxman | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4908128 | Chiba | Mar 1990 | A |
| 5047103 | Abrams | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5219469 | Binzer et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5389247 | Woodside | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5492753 | Levy | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5543194 | Rudy | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5985148 | Liu | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6060145 | Smith et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6103641 | Ghering, Jr. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6159372 | Yang | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6171677 | Oikawa | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6602407 | Talbot et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
| 6692811 | Lasko | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6713151 | Dean | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 8533869 | Capuano | Sep 2013 | B1 |
| 8850692 | Han | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 9440413 | Lewis | Sep 2016 | B2 |
| 9321218 | Han | Oct 2016 | B2 |
| 9788589 | Lewis | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 20010008039 | Alboom et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
| 20020023871 | Talbot et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20040137190 | Lasko | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040171321 | Plant | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050014437 | Yoshida | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050247403 | Chan | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050266204 | Abrams | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060228967 | Gladfelter | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20070289688 | Abrams | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080193709 | Han | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080274326 | Kim et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090035599 | Kim | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20100028552 | Stieber | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20110209595 | Han | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20120177861 | Eleazer et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120186002 | Bhatnagar et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20130115408 | Abrams | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130122256 | Kleiven et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130298317 | Fonte et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130330502 | Lewis | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140037890 | McJunkins | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20150211185 | Kien | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20160243787 | Han | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160265157 | Rice | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160302507 | Lewis | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160368240 | Lewis | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170225447 | Varadan | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20180092420 | Lewis | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180222146 | Rice | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 102605509 | Jul 2012 | CN |
| 107060273 | Aug 2017 | CN |
| 62140679 | Jun 1987 | JP |
| 07-300758 | Nov 1995 | JP |
| 1020080003406 | Jan 2008 | KR |
| 2004012933 | Feb 2004 | WO |
| 2012087406 | Jun 2012 | WO |
| 2015084709 | Jun 2015 | WO |
| WO-2015084709 | Jun 2015 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report, PCT/US2017/041449, dated Oct. 18, 2017, pp. 4. |
| Brady, S., et al., “Wearable Sensors? What is There to Sense?”, Studies in Health and Informatics, 117:80-88 (2005). |
| Dunne, L.E., et al., “Initial Development and Testing of a Novel Foam-Based Pressure Sensor for Wearable Sensing”, Journal of NeuoEngineering and Rehabilitation, 2(4): 7 pages, (2005). |
| Liu, Y., et al., “Compression Behavior of Warp-Knitted Spacer Fabrics for Cushioning Applications”, Textile Research Journal, 11 pages, Aug. 2, 2011, downloaded from URL:http://trj.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/31/0040517511416283. |
| Qiao, P., et al., “Impact Mechanics and High-Energy Absorbing Materials: Review”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 21(4):235-248 (2008). |
| Torg, MD, J.S., et al., “Retrospective Report on the Effectiveness of a Polyurethane Football Helmet Cover on the Repeated Occurrence of Cerebral Concussioins”, The American Journal of Orthopedics, 28(2):128-132 (1999). |
| Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2014/067883, “Flexible, Fibrous Energy Managing Composite Panels”, dated Mar. 31, 2015. |
| Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2016/020341, “Structured Flock Fiber Reinforced Layer”, dated Jul. 25, 2016. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20180016719 A1 | Jan 2018 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62361080 | Jul 2016 | US |
