DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rao et al. (US20210387734A1) in view of Manfredi et al. ("Chapter Additive Manufacturing of Al Alloys and Aluminium Matrix Composites (AMCs)." (2014).)
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11 and 15, Rao teaches a method of manufacturing an energy absorber of AlSi10Mg, comprising the steps of: providing a build plate (implied)
building, by an additive manufacturing process, an energy absorber in the form of an integrated seat pan [0028-0029] atop the build plate;
heating the built energy absorber in a heating furnace to a solutionizing temperature T6 heat treatment (T6 treatment is considered by definition to include water quenching); [0029]
Rao does not teach the heat treatment occurs while pan is atop the build plate; and Rao is silent regarding the temperature and duration used for the heat treatment. However, Manfredi teaches a method of additive manufacturing (DMLS) of AlSiMg parts using a build plate where, in order to avoiding bending of the product annealing is performed before removing from the build platform; and when a T6 heat treatment is used, heat treatment was performed at 530 C for 5 hours before quenching with water and polishing (See Section 7.3); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat treat in the claimed range of 300-550 C for 4-6 hours before water quenching as claimed while the object is still on the build plate for the purpose of predictably reducing residual stresses on the formed object without bending the product before removing the product from the build plate.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rao et al. (US20210387734A1) in view of Manfredi et al. ("Chapter Additive Manufacturing of Al Alloys and Aluminium Matrix Composites (AMCs)." (2014).) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above in further view of Chehab et al. (US20240227023A1)
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 12-14, Rao is silent regarding the solutionizing temperature being within 350-500 C, 400-450 C, or about 430 C. However, Chebab teaches a method of additive manufacturing Al alloy powder and a post fabrication heat treatment is performed (abstract) for 300-500 C for 10 minutes to 50 hours for the purpose of reducing residual stresses of the formed part [0034]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the T6 heat treatment in the claimed ranges for the purpose of reducing residual stresses in the formed part.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Chehab teaches a rate of rise of 5 C/min or greater [0035]
Claim(s) 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rao et al. (US20210387734A1) in view of Manfredi et al. ("Chapter Additive Manufacturing of Al Alloys and Aluminium Matrix Composites (AMCs)." (2014).) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above in further view of Rao et al. (Rao II) (US20190359096A1.)
Regarding Claims 9-10 and 18-19, Rao is silent regarding the part having a collapsible structure comprising a hub, and exterior skin surrounding the hub and a plurality of spokes extending from the hub to the skin where each spoke is tapered along a length thereof; However, Rao II teaches a collapsable structure including a hub, an exterior skin, and a plurality of spokes extending outwardly from the hub to the exterior skin where each spoke is taped along a length thereof (Abstract) which can be used for a seating system [0003] similar to that of Rao. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use the claimed collapsible structure for the purpose of forming an energy absorbing collapsible structure [0014].
Regarding Claim 10, the exterior skin is polygonal with each vertex being connected to a spoke (See Claim 4); and the spokes are uniformly distant from neighboring spokes and are symmetric about a central axis (See Fig 5)
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art is silent regarding the height and diameter of the build energy absorber; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to under routine experimentation, find useable dimensions of a collapsable energy absorbing structure for a chair, and would arrive at the claimed range of 5 inches for the height and no more than 2 inches for the diameter (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) as there is a need to use a dimension small enough to minimize weight of the part, but strong enough to serve to effectively absorb energy in practice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights