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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-16 and 19 are pending wherein claims 9 and 15 are amended, claims 10, 12-13 and 17-18 are canceled and claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 9, 14-15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rak et al. (Porous titanium foil by tape casting techniques) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 9. The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama et al. (JP 2013-078556) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 9. The previous rejection of claims 11, 14, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (JP 2013-078556) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to the recitations “a thickness of the porous metal sintered body is 0.5 mm or more” in claim 11 and “the thickness of the porous metal sintered body is less than 0.5 mm” in claim 11, “0.5 or more” would be broader than the thickness of 1.0 mm set forth in claim 9 since it would include thicknesses such as 2.0 mm and “less than 0.5 mm” in claim 11 would include values such as 0.1 mm and would be broader than the range of claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 9, 11, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rak et al. (Porous titanium foil by tape casting techniques).
In regard to claims 9, 14-15 and 19, Rak et al. discloses a sintered titanium sheet having a thickness of 370 micrometers (0.37 mm) with a porosity of 36.2% (Table 2) and flexural strengths (bending strength) of above 400 MPa (Introduction).
With respect to the recitation “derived from a titanium-containing powder, wherein the porous metal sintered body is a powder sintered body” in claim 9, Rak et al. discloses wherein the sheet would be sintered from powder (Introduction).
With respect to the recitation “wherein a content of titanium in the porous metal sintered body is 98% by mass or more” in claim 9, while Rak et al. does not specify the purity of the titanium in the porous metal body, merely making a known product more pure would not patentably distinguish from that known product. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
In regard to claim 11, Rak et al. discloses a sintered titanium sheet with a thickness of 370 micrometers and a porosity of 36.2% (Table 2) and a flexural strength (bending strength) of above 400 (Introduction).
With respect to the recitation “and the maximum height is 1.5 mm or less” in claim 11, merely changing the dimension of a prior art product would not be sufficient to distinguish from the prior art product. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regard to claim 16, Rak et al. discloses wherein the powders have mean particle sizes in the range of 5 to 20 micrometers, which overlap the range of the instant invention (page 359, right column). MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein a content of titanium in the porous metal sintered body is 98% by mass or more” in claim 16, while Rak et al. does not specify the purity of the titanium in the porous metal body, merely making a known product more pure would not patentably distinguish from that known product. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Claims 9, 11, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (JP 2013-072135).
In regard to claims 9 and 15, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses using titanium or titanium alloy powder and sintering it into a sheet such that the porosity would be 25 to 40% (abstract, [0035], [0037] and [0045]). Additionally, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses roll gap settings of 0.2, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.9 mm, which would approximate the thickness of the sheets produced [0054]. Regardless, merely changing the thickness of a prior art product would not patentably distinguish from that prior art product. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). With respect to the recitation “wherein a content of titanium in the porous metal sintered body is 98% by mass or more” in claim 9, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses wherein only titanium would be used [0045]. Alternately, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) fails to specify the purity of the titanium and merely making a prior art product more pure would not patentably distinguish from that prior art product. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
With respect to the recitation “and a bending strength of 190 MPa or more” in claims 9 and 15, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses the same or substantially similar titanium sheets and therefore this property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 11, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses roll gap settings of 0.2, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.9 mm, which would approximate the thickness of the sheets produced [0054].
With respect to the recitation “and the maximum height is 1.5 mm or less” in claim 11, merely changing the dimension of a prior art product would not be sufficient to distinguish from the prior art product. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regard to claim 14, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses using titanium or titanium alloy powder and sintering it into a sheet such that the porosity would be 25 to 40% (abstract, [0035], [0037] and [0045]).
In regard to claim 16, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses wherein the powder would have a size of 10, 18 or 40 micrometers [0058]. However, this limitation (to powder) would more pertain to the processing rather than a feature of the final product (titanium sheet) and has been considered a processing limitation. MPEP 2113.
In regard to claim 19, Sugawara et al. (JP ‘135) discloses using titanium or titanium alloy powder and sintering it into a sheet such that the porosity would be 25 to 40% (abstract, [0035], [0037] and [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant primarily argues that claims 9 and 15 recite that the porous metal sintered body has a titanium content o 98% by mass or more and this distinguishes the instant claims from Rak et al.
In response, while Rak et al. does not specify the purity of the titanium in the porous metal body, merely making a known product more pure would not patentably distinguish from that known product. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights