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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Claims 3-6 are amended to correct dependence.
Claims 1-6 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's claims for foreign priority based on applications filed in Japan on 09/17/2020, 09/28/2020 and 10/07/2020. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the applications, JP2020-156399, JP2020-163246 and JP2020-169661, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Each information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on or before 04/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initial copy is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “contact” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “close”. For examination, the limitation “close contact” has been interpreted as “contact”. Claims 2-6 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
The term “close” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “contact” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “close”. For examination, the limitation “close contact” has been interpreted as “contact”.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (Choe, Heeman, and David C. Dunand. "Mechanical properties of oxidation-resistant Ni–Cr foams." Materials Science and Engineering: A 384.1-2 (2004): 184-193., cited in IDS filed 04/10/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Choe discloses a nickel-chromium porous body (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) comprising a skeleton (“foams”; pg. 185, col. 1, para. 2) having a three-dimensional mesh-like structure (“foams”; pg. 185, col. 1, para. 2),
wherein the skeleton (“foams”; pg. 185, col. 1, para. 2) has a hollow inner portion (“hollow struts”; pg. 185, col. 1, para. 2) and has a main metal layer (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) and a surface oxide layer (“
C
r
2
O
3
”; pg.187, col. 2, para. 1; “scale”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) formed on each surface side (“surface”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) of the main metal layer (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2),
the surface oxide layer (“scale”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) has a thickness of 0.5 um or more (“5-10 um”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) and contains chromium oxide (“
C
r
2
O
3
”; pg.187, col. 2, para. 1) as a main component (pg.187, col. 2, para. 1),
the main metal layer (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) is formed of nickel-chromium (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) having a chromium content of 10 mass% or more (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) as a whole (“the Cr concentration is uniform in the foams after homogenization”; pg. 186, col. 1, para. 1) and a region (Fig. 5; region extending 3um from interface between Ni-19.4Cr and
C
r
2
O
3
) extending at least 3 um (Fig. 5) from an interface (Fig. 5; interface between Ni-19.4Cr and
C
r
2
O
3
) in contact (Fig. 5) with the surface oxide layer (“
C
r
2
O
3
”; pg.187, col. 2, para. 1; “scale”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2), and
the surface oxide layer (“
C
r
2
O
3
”; pg.187, col. 2, para. 1; “scale”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) and the main metal layer (“Ni-19.4%Cr foam”; pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) are in close contact (Fig. 5) with each other without a gap (Fig. 5; no gap is illustrated) therebetween.
Choe fails to disclose has a chromium content of 20 mass% or more.
However, Choe teaches that “no difference is observed, within experimental error, in the oxidation kinetics normalized by surface areas, as shown in Fig.4(b), indicating that the oxidation mechanism for the foam in air is the same as that for the bulk alloy in pure oxygen.”; (pg. 187, col. 1, para. 1) and suggests that “the Cr concentration is uniform in the foams after homogenization” beyond a thickness of 84 um (pg. 186, col. 1, para. 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that employing a chromium content of 20 mass% as a whole in the porous body of Choe would yield a surface oxide layer that has a thickness of 0.5 um or more and contains chromium oxide as a main component, and a chromium content of 20 mass% or more in a region extending at least 3 um from an interface in contact with the surface oxide layer because Choe teaches that the oxidation mechanism for foam in air is the same as that for the bulk alloy in pure oxygen (pg. 187, col. 1, para. 1), and the bulk alloy of Ni-20%Cr possesses an oxide layer of ~8um (pg. 187, col. 1, para. 2) under similar processing conditions (pg. 187, col. 2, para. 1). Therefore, modified Choe would be expected to possess an oxide layer of ~8 um. Further, Choe suggests that “the Cr concentration is uniform in the foams after homogenization” beyond a thickness of 84 um (pg. 186, col. 1, para. 1). Therefore, modified Choe’s body would be expected to possess “a chromium content of 20 mass% or more in a region extending at least 3 pm from an interface in contact with the surface oxide layer”.
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because Choe suggests that “a significant improvement in oxidation resistance when the chromium content exceeds 15–20%” (pg. 189, col. 1, para 1) and “the hardness of the Ni–Cr alloy struts increases as their chromium content increases” (pg. 189, col. 1, para 2).
Regarding claim 2, Choe discloses wherein when a nickel-chromium porous body (Fig. 5) is cut in a thickness direction (Fig. 5; up down direction), a surface oxide layer (Fig. 5; “
C
r
2
O
3
”) is in close contact (Fig. 5) with a main metal layer (Fig. 5; strut) in 80% or more (Fig. 5; the
C
r
2
O
3
covers more than 80% of the strut) of the skeleton (Fig. 5; strut) in a fracture cross-section (Fig. 5) of the nickel-chromium porous body (Fig. 5; strut).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that modified Choe would produce similar results to those illustrated, and more specifically when the nickel-chromium porous body is cut in a thickness direction, the surface oxide layer is in close contact with the main metal layer in 80% or more of the skeleton in a fracture cross-section of the nickel-chromium porous body because Choe teaches that Ni-Cr alloys subjected to oxidation treatment produce “inherently dense and coherent” oxide layers and that “a significant improvement in oxidation resistance [occurs] when the chromium content exceeds 15–20%” (pg. 189, col. 1, para 1). Therefore, modified Choe, which possesses a chromium content slightly higher than the porous body illustrated in Fig. 5, would be expected to possess “a very adherent, dense
C
r
2
O
3
layer” (pg. 189, col. 1; para. 1) with an oxide layer as adherent as or more adherent than that pictured in Fig. 5.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (Choe, Heeman, and David C. Dunand. "Mechanical properties of oxidation-resistant Ni–Cr foams." Materials Science and Engineering: A 384.1-2 (2004): 184-193., cited in IDS filed 04/10/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Okuno (US 20180261853 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choe fails to disclose having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm.
Okuno teaches a thickness of 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm (“ 0.10 mm or more and 1.20 mm or less”; [0123]).
Okuno is analogous art to Choe because Okuno and Choe are related to the production of metallic foams for industrial applications requiring high oxidation resistance (Okuno [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choe by employing a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm in order to obtain “ a uniform thickness of the external form of the porous metal body and … eliminate variations in surface irregularities” as taught by Okuno ([0123]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choe fails to disclose having a porosity of 60% to 98%.
Okuno teaches a porosity of 60% to 98% (“a porosity of 51% or more and 90% or less”; [0062]).
Okuno is analogous art to Choe because Okuno and Choe are related to the production of metallic foams for industrial applications requiring high oxidation resistance (Okuno [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choe by employing a porosity of 51% or more and 90% or less in order to enable “the gas pressure loss to be reduced when the porous metal body is used as a gas diffusion layer of a fuel battery” as taught by Okuno ([0062]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (Choe, Heeman, and David C. Dunand. "Mechanical properties of oxidation-resistant Ni–Cr foams." Materials Science and Engineering: A 384.1-2 (2004): 184-193., cited in IDS filed 04/10/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Jeon (US 20130264272 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choe fails to disclose wherein the nickel-chromium porous body has a bottom surface having a polygonal shape and has a curved shape from the bottom surface toward an apex, the bottom surface has a side having a length of 2 mm to 10 mm, and a height from the bottom surface to the apex is 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm.
Choe does disclose that nickel-base porous bodies are excellent candidates for filtering applications (pg. 184, col. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choe by using the porous body of Choe as a filter.
Jeon discloses wherein a porous body (Fig. 12; 520) has a bottom surface (annotated Fig. 12; BS) having a polygonal shape ([0048] teaches 520 may possess a rectangular shape) and has a curved shape ([0050] teaches that from the bottom surface to the apex, aka “the concave portion” [0050], may be a hemi-spherical shape or conical tube shape), from the bottom surface
PNG
media_image1.png
752
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(BS) toward an apex (annotated Fig. 12; A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choe by substituting the shape of Choe for the shape of Jeon such that the nickel-chromium porous body has a bottom surface having a polygonal shape and has a curved shape from the bottom surface toward an apex. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been employing a shape known in the art as suitable for a filter as taught by Jeon ([0048]).
While Choe in view of Jeon does not explicitly teach “the bottom surface has a side having a length of 2 mm to 10 mm, and a height from the bottom surface to the apex is 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm”, changes to size/proportion are a matter of choice to an ordinarily skilled artisan and are prima facie obviousness in view of the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B), absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (Choe, Heeman, and David C. Dunand. "Mechanical properties of oxidation-resistant Ni–Cr foams." Materials Science and Engineering: A 384.1-2 (2004): 184-193., cited in IDS filed 04/10/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Fan (CN-101810951-A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choe fails to disclose wherein the nickel-chromium porous body has a bottom surface having a circular shape and has a hemispherical shape from the bottom surface toward an apex, the bottom surface has a diameter of 2 mm to 10 mm, and a height from the bottom surface to the apex is 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm.
Choe does disclose that nickel-base porous bodies are excellent candidates for filtering applications (pg. 184, col. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choe by using the porous body of Choe as a filter.
PNG
media_image2.png
395
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fan discloses wherein a porous body (Fig. 2; 21) has a bottom surface (annotated Fig. 2; BS) having a circular shape (“cylindrical”; [0033]) and has a hemispherical shape ([0033]) from the bottom surface (BS) toward an apex (annotated Fig. 2; A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choe by changing the shape of the filter of modified Choe such that it had a bottom surface having a circular shape and has a hemispherical shape from the bottom surface toward an apex, in order to increase the contact area with the target medium and increase the effective filtration area as taught by Fan ([0019]).
While Choe in view of Fan does not explicitly teach “the bottom surface has a diameter of 2 mm to 10 mm, and a height from the bottom surface to the apex is 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm”, changes to size/proportion are a matter of choice to an ordinarily skilled artisan and are prima facie obviousness in view of the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B), absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights