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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 18, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “surface area of 5m2/” should be “surface area of 5m2/g”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-11, Claim 12 and dependent Claims 13-16, and Claim 17 and dependent claims 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “nanopores having randomly extending branches projecting into the wall portion adjacent the macropores from opposing sides of the macropores”. This language is not found in the originally filed specification, and Fig. 6, while depicting nanopores with branches, is insufficient support for the claimed limitation of nanopores comprising randomly extending branches.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the nanopores have branches projecting random directions into the wall portion from opposing sides of the macropores”. This language is not found in the originally filed specification, and Fig. 6, while depicting nanopores with branches, is insufficient support for the claimed limitation of nanopores having branches projecting random directions into the wall portion from opposing sides of the macropores.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites “wherein the nanopores form randomly extending branches within the wall portion and project into the macropores from opposing sides of the macropores”. This language is not found in the originally filed specification, and Fig. 6, while depicting nanopores with branches, is insufficient support for the claimed limitation of nanopores comprising randomly extending branches.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites “wherein the de-alloying subsystem is controlled to create macropores configured as parallel, elongated paths”. This language cannot be found in the instant specification.
Figure 6 and para. [0031] of the instant specification describe structure 28b’ as both an additively manufactured and de-alloyed structure, which comprises macropores which operate as paths (30) and nanopores (32). Para. [0031] does not expressly specify that the macropores (30) are a created by (and a result of) the dealloying as claimed however, because 28b’ has been subjected to two processes of pore formation – formation of pores through additive manufacturing and formation of pores through dealloying. It is unclear from para. [0031] alone which pore is formed by what process because para. [0031] states that structure 28b’ has three differing length scale porosities, but Fig. 6 is a simplified figure of 28b’ and only shows 2 levels of porosity. However, in comparison of para. [0032] and Fig. 7, it is clear that the macroscale pores, i.e. macropores, (34) are formed through the additive manufacturing process and appear as parallel, elongated paths (see also para. [0010], [0025] and [0036], wherein macropores are digitally controlled/printed), while the dealloying process results in the mesoscale pores (36) and nanoscale pores (38).
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore ascertain from the instant specification and figures, that additively manufactured macropores 34 (Fig. 7) are consistent with the macropores 30 in Fig. 6, and the de-alloyed nanopores 38 (Fig. 7) are consistent with the nanopores 32 (Fig. 6). Further, comparative prior art Fig. 1 depicts the same nanoporous structure as Fig. 6 which is obtained from the de-alloying process, the difference between Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 being the macroporosity (channels 30) formed by the additive manufacturing process of the instant invention.
Thus, while there is support for the formation of digitally controlled macropores configured as parallel, elongated paths ‘via the additive manufacturing system’ and for the formation of mesoscale pores and nanopores formed through the de-alloying subsystem, there does not appear to be support for creation (formation) of macropores configured as parallel, elongated paths ‘through the de-alloying subsystem’.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12, and dependent Claims 13-16, and Claim 17, and dependent Claims 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “a de-alloying subsystem configured to de-alloy the alloyed 3D structure to form a hierarchical, nanoporous 3D structure having an engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology, and having additional first and second integrated levels of porosity”. It is unclear if the de-alloying subsystem needs is required to be configured to produce the engineered, digitally controlled macropore technology or not, and it is therefore also unclear what structural components would be required by the dealloying subsystem to produce such macropores. Examiner interprets wherein the additive manufacturing system is configured to form the engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites “a de-alloying subsystem configured to de-alloy the alloyed 3D structure to form a hierarchical, nanoporous 3D structure having an engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology with two integrated levels of porosity” and “wherein the de-alloying subsystem is controlled to create macropores configured as parallel, elongated paths”. It is unclear what structural components and/or configurations would be required by the dealloying subsystem to produce such macropores and how the dealloying subsystem would be capable of forming engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology and further parallel, elongated paths. Examiner interprets wherein the additive manufacturing system is configured to form the engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology and macropores configured as parallel, elongated paths.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (previously cited, US 20190054536 A1) in view of Lessar (previously cited, US 20060129240 A1) and Qi (previously cited, “Hierarchical Nested-Network Nanostructure by Dealloying”).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu discloses a system for using a feedstock to form a three-dimensional, hierarchical, porous metal structure with deterministically controlled 3D multiscale porous architectures (Abstract; Fig. 4, Fig. 11A-11B; para. [0258], wherein Xu uses a feedstock of metallic ink).
Regarding the preamble recitation “for using a feedstock to form a hierarchical, porous, metal, three dimensional (3D) structure with deterministically controlled 3D multiscale porous architectures”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Xu discloses the system comprising:
an reservoir for holding the feedstock, the feedstock being formed as a rheologically tuned alloy ink (Fig. 1A, para. [0258] wherein syringe barrel contains the metallic ink; see para. [0177] wherein ink is rheologically tuned by solvent);
a printing stage for receiving the feedstock (Fig. 1A, substrate receives ink; para. [0258]);
a processor including a memory and configured to help carry out an additive manufacturing printing process to produce a three-dimensional (3D) structure using the feedstock in a layer-by-layer fashion, on the printing stage (Fig. 1A, wherein deposition is layer by layer on printing stage; para. [0158] wherein machine is uses computer aided design; a computer requires a processor, and utilizing a CAD model requires a processor with memory – see also para. [0260] and para. [0297], wherein software is used; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a computer which uses CAD software and a CAD model, which may be downloaded data, requires a processor with memory); and
a nozzle for applying the feedstock therethrough onto the printing stage (Fig. 1A, nozzle; para. [0258], micronozzle).
Regarding the recitation “the feedstock being formed as a rheologically turned alloy ink”, this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115.
Xu further discloses wherein the processor is configured to carry out an additive manufacturing printing process which produces the 3D structure with a digitally controlled macroporosity (see para. [0002]; para. [0158]; Fig. 4).
Additionally, the language “the additive manufacturing printing process producing the 3D structure with a digitally controlled macroporosity” is a functional limitation directed to a process performed by the claimed system/apparatus. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
In the instant case, Xu discloses the claimed processer structure, and one which carries out an additive manufacturing printing process (Abstract; para. [0158]), that is configured to and capable of producing a 3D structure (Abstract; Fig. 1) with a digitally controlled macroporosity (Fig. 4), as claimed.
Xu fails to disclose “a de-alloying subsystem for further processing the 3D structure through a de-alloying operation, the de-alloying subsystem being configured to form a de-alloyed 3D structure having two additional distinct, differing pore length scales”.
Lessar teaches the formation of porous substrates using a system including additive manufacturing and selective dealloying, the parameters of the selective dealloying being tailored to control pore size and distribution (para. [0036]; [0045]-[0046]).
Qi further teaches a de-alloying system for processing a component through a de-alloying operation to form a de-alloyed structure having two distinct, differing pore length scales (Abstract; Fig. 4a and 4b; see also Fig. 1; see also Conclusions, “two quite distinct length scales”, “hierarchical porous structure…two levels of pore size”). Qi teaches wherein this system produces enhanced transport kinetics while maintaining large surface area, thereby producing a functional material such as actuators, varistors and catalysts (Abstract; Pg. 5948, Col. 1-Col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a dealloying system, as taught by Lessar and Qi, which is configured to form a de-alloyed structure having two distinct, differing pore length scales, as taught by Qi, for the invention disclosed by Xu. One would be motivated to include a dealloying system in order to control pore size and distribution (see teaching by Lessar), and further to enhance transport kinetics while maintaining large surface area, thereby production functional materials such as actuators, varistors and catalysts (see teaching by Qi above). Additionally, Xu teaches wherein porosity is desired for biomedical and aerospace applications (para. [0318]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefits of enhanced transport kinetics and large surface area for biomedical implants.
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the dealloying subsystem of Lessar and Qi would be configured to, and capable of, performing a de-alloying process on the 3D structure of Xu (which comprises a macroporosity) to further produce two additional, distinct and differing pore length scales (see teaching by Qi above), as claimed.
Regarding the limitation, “the system being controlled to create macropores via the additive manufacturing printing process, the macropores configured as elongated paths, with each said macropore having a wall portion with a plurality of randomly shaped nanopores formed in the wall portion, the nanopores having randomly therewithin and projecting into each of the macropores from opposing sides of the macropores, such that the 3D structure forms a hierarchal, deterministically controlled 3D structure having multiscale porous architectures”, this limitation is an intended use and functional recitation of the apparatus (see MPEP 2114).
In the instant case, the system of Xu and dealloying subsystem of Qi and Lessar would be capable of performing the claimed function because Xu teaches the wherein the system is controllable to form parallel, elongated macropores using the additive process (see Fig. 7a-7b and 8a-8c) and Qi demonstrates wherein the de-alloying subsystem has been and therefore capable of being controlled to produce nanopores with randomly extending branches formed within the surfaces of a structures’ walls, and to produce two distinct and different pore length scale porosities as claimed (Abstract; Pg. 5950, Col. 2, para. 1-2; Fig. 4a and 4b).
Further, the instant specification states wherein the de-alloying of the 3D structure includes using various types of acid and alkaline solution (0.1M up to saturated form), and a power source with 2-3 electrodes (para. [0030] of instant specification). Qi demonstrates and discloses wherein the dealloying subsystem is configured to handle the same, including metallic materials in concentrated acidic solutions (1M HClO4), and by using electrodes and a power source controllable to different dealloying potentials and current densities (Pg. 5953, Methods, see varying mV potentials used; see Fig. 2(a)-(c); see also para. [0045] of Lessar wherein pore sizes are controlled by de-alloying process parameters). Thus, the dealloying subsystem of Qi comprises the structure/configurations to perform the de-alloying process according to the instant specification, and to produce resulting structure thereof.
Because the system (apparatus) structure has been met by Xu, Qi and Lessar and the claimed 3D structure having multiscale porous architectures is a result of processing parameters (3D CAD model, printing process parameters, dealloying process parameters, type of material worked upon) and is an intended use of the apparatus, all claim limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 12, Xu discloses a system for forming a three-dimensional, hierarchical, porous metal structure with deterministically controlled 3D multiscale hierarchical pore architectures (Abstract; Fig. 4, Fig. 11A-11B; para. [0258]; para. [0158]).
Regarding the preamble recitation “for using a feedstock to form a hierarchical, porous, metal, three dimensional (3D) structure with deterministically controlled 3D multiscale porous architectures”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Xu discloses the system comprising:
a printing stage (Fig. 1A, ink is printed on substrate; para. [0258]);
an additive manufacturing system including a processor having a nozzle, and configured to print a three-dimensional (3D) structure in a layer-by-layer process by flowing a rheologically tuned ink having a binder through the nozzle onto the printing stage and to build up the 3D structure in a layer-by-layer process (para. [0258]; Fig. 1A, wherein ink is deposited layer by layer through the nozzle to build 3D structure; see para. [0177] wherein ink is rheologically tuned by solvent; Abstract, polymer binder); and
an annealing subsystem configured to anneal the 3D structure to remove the binder, and to form an alloyed 3D structure (para. [0258], binder removed in furnace and microparticles are sintered).
Xu discloses wherein the system is configured to produce an engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology configured as elongated paths in the alloyed 3D structure (see para. [0002]; para. [0158]; Fig. 4, depicting macropores as elongated channels; see also Fig. 7-8; see 112b rejection and interpretation above), but fails to disclose “a de-alloying subsystem configured to de-alloy the alloyed 3D structure to form a hierarchical, nanoporous 3D structure…having additional first and second integrated levels of porosity”.
Lessar teaches the formation of porous substrates using a system including additive manufacturing and selective dealloying, the parameters of the selective dealloying being tailored to control pore size and distribution (para. [0036]; [0045]-[0046]).
Qi further teaches a de-alloying system for processing a component through a de-alloying operation to form a de-alloyed structure having two distinct, differing pore length scales (Abstract; Fig. 4a and 4b; see also Fig. 1; see also Conclusions, “two quite distinct length scales”, “hierarchical porous structure…two levels of pore size”). Qi teaches wherein this system produces enhanced transport kinetics while maintaining large surface area, thereby producing a functional material such as actuators, varistors and catalysts (Abstract; Pg. 5948, Col. 1-Col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a dealloying system, as taught by Lessar and Qi, which is configured to form a de-alloyed structure having two distinct, differing pore length scales and therefore first and second integrated levels of porosity as claimed, as taught by Qi, for the invention disclosed by Xu. One would be motivated to include a dealloying system in order to control pore size and distribution (see teaching by Lessar), and further to enhance transport kinetics while maintaining large surface area, thereby production functional materials such as actuators, varistors and catalysts (see teaching by Qi above). Additionally, Xu teaches wherein porosity is desired for biomedical and aerospace applications (para. [0318]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefits of enhanced transport kinetics and large surface area for biomedical implants.
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the dealloying subsystem of Lessar and Qi would be configured to, and capable of, performing a de-alloying process on the 3D structure of Xu (which comprises a macroporosity) to further produce two additional, distinct and differing pore length scales and therefore two additional levels of porosity (see teaching by Qi above), as claimed.
Regarding the limitation, “the system being controlled to create macropores configured as elongated paths, with each said macropore having a wall portion having a plurality of randomly shaped nanopores formed within the wall portion, wherein the nanopores have branches projecting in random directions into the wall portion from opposing sides of the macropores, such that the 3D structure forms a hierarchical, deterministically controlled 3D structure having multiscale porous architectures”, this limitation is an intended use and functional recitation of the apparatus (see MPEP 2114).
In the instant case, the system of Xu and dealloying subsystem of Qi and Lessar would be capable of performing the claimed function because Xu teaches the wherein the system is controllable to form parallel, elongated macropores using the additive process (see Fig. 7a-7b and 8a-8c) and Qi demonstrates wherein the de-alloying subsystem has been controlled to produce randomly shaped nanopores with branches projecting in random directions and formed within the surfaces of a structures’ walls, and to produce two integrated levels of porosities as claimed (Abstract; Pg. 5950, Col. 2, para. 1-2; Fig. 4a and 4b).
Further, the instant specification states wherein the de-alloying of the 3D structure includes using various types of acid and alkaline solution (0.1M up to saturated form), and a power source with 2-3 electrodes (para. [0030] of instant specification). Qi demonstrates and discloses wherein the dealloying subsystem is configured to handle the same, including metallic materials in concentrated acidic solutions (1M HClO4), and by using electrodes and a power source controllable to different dealloying potentials and current densities (Pg. 5953, Methods, see varying mV potentials used; see Fig. 2(a)-(c); see also para. [0045] of Lessar wherein pore sizes are controlled by de-alloying process parameters). Thus, the dealloying subsystem of Qi comprises the structure/configurations to perform the de-alloying process according to the instant specification, and to produce resulting structure thereof.
Because the system (apparatus) structure has been met by Xu, Qi and Lessar and the claimed 3D structure having multiscale porous architectures is a result of processing parameters (3D CAD model, printing process parameters, dealloying process parameters, type of material worked upon) and is an intended use of the apparatus, all claim limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 17, Xu discloses a system for forming a three dimensional, hierarchical, porous metal structure with deterministically controlled 3D multiscale hierarchical pore architectures (Abstract; Fig. 4, Fig. 11A-11B; para. [0258]; para. [0158]) .
Regarding the preamble recitation “for using a feedstock to form a hierarchical, porous, metal, three dimensional (3D) structure with deterministically controlled 3D multiscale porous architectures”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Xu discloses the system comprising:
a printing stage (Fig. 1A, ink is printed on substrate; para. [0258]);
a rheologically tuned, flowable ink including a metal powder and a binder (para. [0160]-[0162]; para. [0169]; para. [0172]; Fig. 1A, ink is flowable; see para. [0258] comprising metal microparticles, PLA and DCM; PLA is a binder, steel microparticles read on metal powder; see para. [0177] wherein ink is rheologically tuned by solvent);
an additive manufacturing system including a processor for controlling a printing process, and also having a nozzle, and configured to print a three dimensional (3D) structure in a layer-by-layer process by flowing the rheologically tuned ink through the nozzle onto the printing stage, to build up the 3D structure in a layer-by-layer printing operation (Fig. 1A, wherein deposition of flowable ink from nozzle is layer by layer on printing stage – see also para. [0258]; para. [0158] wherein machine is uses computer aided design; a computer requires a processor, and utilizing a CAD model requires a processor – see also para. [0260] and para. [0297], wherein software is used; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a computer which uses CAD software and a CAD model, which may be downloaded data, requires a processor); and
an annealing subsystem configured to anneal the 3D structure by heating the 3D structure for a predetermined time period to remove the binder, to form an alloyed 3D structure (para. [0258], binder removed in furnace and microparticles are sintered; para. [0083] wherein sintering may be 30minutes to 12 hours).
Xu discloses wherein the system is configured to produce an engineered, digitally controlled macropore morphology configured as elongated paths in the alloyed 3D structure (see para. [0002]; para. [0158]; Fig. 4, depicting macropores as elongated channels; see also Fig. 7-8; see 112b rejection and interpretation above), but fails to disclose “a de-alloying subsystem configured to de-alloy the alloyed 3D structure to form a hierarchical, nanoporous 3D structure…with two integrated additional levels of porosity”.
Lessar teaches the formation of porous substrates using a system including additive manufacturing and selective dealloying, the parameters of the selective dealloying being tailored to control pore size and distribution (para. [0036]; [0045]-[0046]).
Qi further teaches a de-alloying system for processing a component through a de-alloying operation to form a de-alloyed structure having two distinct, differing pore length scales (Abstract; Fig. 4a and 4b; see also Fig. 1; see also Conclusions, “two quite distinct length scales”, “hierarchical porous structure…two levels of pore size”). Qi teaches wherein this system produces enhanced transport kinetics while maintaining large surface area, thereby producing a functional material such as actuators, varistors and catalysts (Abstract; Pg. 5948, Col. 1-Col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a dealloying system, as taught by Lessar and Qi, which is configured to form a de-alloyed structure from the 3D alloyed structure having two distinct, differing pore length scales and therefore two additional levels of porosity as claimed, as taught by Qi, for the invention disclosed by Xu. One would be motivated to include a dealloying system in order to control pore size and distribution (see teaching by Lessar), and further to enhance transport kinetics while maintaining large surface area, thereby production functional materials such as actuators, varistors and catalysts (see teaching by Qi above). Additionally, Xu teaches wherein porosity is desired for biomedical and aerospace applications (para. [0318]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefits of enhanced transport kinetics and large surface area for biomedical implants.
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the dealloying subsystem of Lessar and Qi would be configured to, and capable of, performing a de-alloying process on the 3D structure of Xu (which comprises a macroporosity) to further produce two additional, distinct and differing pore length scales and therefore two integrated additional levels of porosity (see teaching by Qi above), as claimed.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the de-alloying subsystem is controlled to create macropores configured as elongated paths, with each said macropore having a plurality of randomly shaped nanopores formed within a wall portion of each said macropore, and wherein the nanopores form randomly extending branches within the all portion and project into the macropores from opposing sides of the macropores, such that the 3D structure forms a hierarchical, deterministically controlled 3D structure having multiscale porous architectures; and wherein the dealloying further configures the alloyed 3D structure with a total porosity of 95% and a surface area of 5m2/g”, this limitation is an intended use and functional recitation of the apparatus (see MPEP 2114).
In the instant case, the system of Xu and dealloying subsystem of Qi and Lessar would be capable of performing the claimed function because Xu teaches the wherein the system is controllable to form parallel, elongated macropores using the additive process (see Fig. 7a-7b and 8a-8c) and Qi demonstrates wherein the de-alloying subsystem has been controlled to produce randomly shaped nanopores with branches projecting in random directions and formed within the surfaces of a structures’ walls, and to produce two integrated levels of porosities as claimed (Abstract; Pg. 5950, Col. 2, para. 1-2; Fig. 4a and 4b).
Further, the instant specification states wherein the de-alloying of the 3D structure includes using various types of acid and alkaline solution (0.1M up to saturated form), and a power source with 2-3 electrodes (para. [0030] of instant specification). Qi demonstrates and discloses wherein the dealloying subsystem is configured to handle the same, including metallic materials in concentrated acidic solutions (1M HClO4), and by using electrodes and a power source controllable to different dealloying potentials and current densities (Pg. 5953, Methods, see varying mV potentials used; see Fig. 2(a)-(c); see also para. [0045] of Lessar wherein pore sizes are controlled by de-alloying process parameters). Thus, the dealloying subsystem of Qi comprises the structure/configurations to perform the de-alloying process according to the instant specification, and to produce resulting structure thereof.
Because the system (apparatus) structure has been met by Xu, Qi and Lessar and the claimed 3D structure having multiscale porous architectures, a porosity of 95% and a surface area of 5m2/g is a result of processing parameters (3D CAD model, printing process parameters, dealloying process parameters, type of material worked upon) and is an intended use of the apparatus, all claim limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 2, Xu discloses wherein the feedstock comprises an alloy powder (para. [0169]). Further, this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 3, Xu discloses wherein the rheologically tuned alloy ink comprises an ink formed from a plurality of different metal powders and a binder (para. [0168] and para. [0161]-[0162]). Further, this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 4, Xu discloses wherein the additive manufacturing printing process comprises a direct ink writing (DIW) process (Fig. 1A; para. [0320]; para. [0352]; further, the ink extrusion 3D printing process of Xu reads on a direct ink writing process).
Regarding Claim 5, Xu discloses wherein the additive manufacturing printing process comprises at least one of: a direct ink writing (DIW) process; a selective laser sintering process; a selective laser melting process; a binder powder bed printing process; a fused deposition modeling process; a projection microstereolithography process; an electrophoretic deposition process; a screen printing process; and an inkjet printing process (Fig. 1A; para. [0320]; para. [0352]; additionally, the ink extrusion 3D printing process of Xu reads on a direct ink writing process).
Regarding Claim 6, Xu discloses wherein the rheologically tuned alloy ink comprises an ink formed from silver powder and gold powder (para. [0168]-[0169]; see also Qi, Fig. 1). Further, this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 7, Xu discloses wherein the rheologically tuned alloy ink comprises also comprises an organic binder (para. [0160]-[0162]; para. [0172]; see para. [0258] ink comprising metal microparticles, PLA and DCM; PLA is a binder). Further, this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 8, Xu discloses further comprising an annealing subsystem for performing an annealing operation on the 3D structure prior to performing the de- alloying operation (para. [0258], binder removed in furnace and microparticles are sintered). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the de-alloying to be applied to a formed (sintered) component in order to subject nanoporosity to the correct geometry, and to main structural integrity of the component (see also Qi, wherein de-alloying is applied to bulk samples – Pg. 5948, Col.1; see methods, Pg. 5953).
.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 14 and Claim 19, Xu discloses wherein the annealing subsystem is configured to heat the 3D structure to 0.99%-0.7% of a melting temperature of an alloy being used to form the 3D structure (para. [0224; para. [0258]; for example, one would appreciate high alloy steel to have a melting temperature of about 1400C, and 200C below, or slightly below, 1400C would be a temperature within 0.7-0.99% (0.85%) of 1400C).
Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 15, Xu discloses wherein the annealing subsystem is configured to maintain the 3D structure heated for between 1 hour to 24 hours (para. [0083] wherein sintering may be up to 12 hours).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 16 and Claim 20, Qi does not expressly disclose the language ‘submerging’, however Qi discloses wherein a cell volume for dealloying is 300ml (300cm3) and wherein the components to be dealloyed in acidic solution are 1x1x2mm3 (2mm3) in size (Pg. 5953-5954, Methods). Therefore, the dealloying subsystem comprises a volume which is much larger than the 3D structure and is configured to enable the 3D structure to be submerged (Claim 16) in a solution or (Claim 11 and Claim 20) in an aqueous solution for a predetermined time. Additionally, it would be obvious to submerge the samples in the solution in order to treat the entire sample (Pg. 5954, Methods, samples are placed in HCLO4 solution for a positive amount of time; see Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate concentrated acid, such as HClO4 solution, to be an aqueous solution.
Regarding Claim 13, Xu discloses wherein the rheologically tuned ink comprises an ink from a plurality of metal powders and a binder (para. [0168] and para. [0161]-[0162]). Further, this limitation is directed to a material worked upon by the apparatus. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 18, Xu discloses wherein the rheologically tuned alloy ink comprises an ink formed from a plurality of different metal powders and a binder (para. [0168] and para. [0161]-[0162]).
Claims 11, 16 and 20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (previously cited, US 20190054536 A1) in view of Lessar (previously cited, US 20060129240 A1) and Qi (previously cited, “Hierarchical Nested-Network Nanostructure by Dealloying”), as applied to Claims 1, 12 and 17 above, respectively, in further view of Martin (previously cited, “Nanoporous gold for biomedical applications: structure, properties and applications”).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 16 and Claim 20, Qi discloses wherein a cell volume for dealloying is 300ml (300cm3) and wherein the components to be dealloyed in acidic solution are 1x1x2mm3 in size (Pg. 5953-5954, Methods). While Qi does not expressly disclose the language ‘submerging’, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the dealloying subsystem comprises a volume which is much larger than the object to be dealloyed and therefore one which is configured to enable the 3D structure to be submerged (Claim 16) in a solution or (Claim 11 and Claim 20) in an aqueous solution for a predetermined time as claimed.
Further, Martin teaches wherein dealloying involves immersing samples in concentrated acid for a specified period of time, which reads on the claimed submerging (pg. 156, sect. 7.5, dealloying; immersing reads on submerging).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the de-alloying subsystem enable submerging/immersing of the 3D structure in an aqueous solution for a predetermined time, as claimed, and as taught by Martin, for the invention of Xu and Qi, in order to dealloy the entire surface of the component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to Claims 1, 12 and 17, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Xu in view of Lessar and Qi, have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Regarding Xu, Lessar and Qi:
Applicant argues that the claimed porosity structure is different than the recited references. Applicant argues that Xu fails to disclose dealloying and would not benefit from a dealloying operation, and argues that Qi does not disclose parallel macropores into which nanopores extend (Remarks, Pg. 10).
Applicant argues that while Lessar discloses that various parameters may be selected for controlling pore size and distribution, Lessar does not suggest a system which is able to create nanopores with extending branches (Remarks, Pg. 11).
These arguments are respectfully not found persuasive.
The claims are directed to the apparatus, while arguments appear directed to the instant process and product (porosity) resulting from the process. The apparatus of Xu in view of Lessar and Qi comprises the structural features capable of performing the process of the instant invention, and is therefore configured to implement the claimed process to produce the claimed porosity features. Applicant does not appear to find fault with the motivation to combine the dealloying subsystem of Lessar and Qi with Xu, and has not distinguished how the claimed dealloying subsystem is structurally different than that of Qi. Additionally, Examiner disagrees that the instant invention has support for nanopores which comprise “randomly extending branches” (see 112a rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 107398554 A, English Machine translation provided): teaches a system comprising additive manufacturing and a chemical de-alloying system to create a Cu micro-nano structure (Abstract).
Park (US 20180057912 A1): teaches a metallic melt dealloying system to produce a porous structure (Abstract; Fig. 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights