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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 1-14 and 21 are pending examination.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims.
The 112(b) rejections to claims 11-12 and 14 are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0193365 of Lopatin et al in view of US 4,826,578 of Masuda et al.
As to claim 1, Lopatin teaches of a method for producing a porous structure comprising:
placing a substrate in an electroplating bath (Lopatin, [0046] – [0049]);
applying a first electroplating current as a constant current at a first current density for a first period of time (Lopatin, [0046], [0065] – [0066]); and, after the first period of time,
applying a second electroplating current at a second current density for a second period of time, wherein the first and second current densities grow the porous structure on a surface of the substrate (Lopatin, [0067] – [0068] and Figs. 3A-3E).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Lopatin, there is a substrate 300 onto which a porous structure 306 is formed by applying a first current density. After the application of the first current density is finished, a second current density is applied that produces additional porous structure 308 on the porous structure 306.
Lopatin does not teach that the second current is a pulsed current density.
Masuda teaches of methods for electrodepositing a porous layer on a substrate (Masuda, Abstract).
Masuda additionally teaches that pulse current is utilized to produce a more uniform growth of the porous deposit such that the desired porosity and uniformity can be controlled by controlling the pulse sequence (Masuda, col 4 lines 1-51).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopatin as per Masuda so as to utilize a pulse sequence for the top layer of the porous structure being formed in order to deposit a more uniform layer thereon.
As to claim 2, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin teaches the porous structure is copper (Lopatin, [0064] and [0069]).
Masuda additionally teaches a copper porous structure (col 5 lines 43-61).
As to claim 3, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin teaches the porosity can be between 30% to 70% (Lopatin, [0067]), while Masuda teaches the porosity can be between 10% to 50% (Masuda, col 4 lines 41-47), thus deeming obvious the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claims 4, 6 and 21 Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin teaches the porous structure(s) have specific thickness, thus uniform thickness and thickening (Lopatin, [0065] – [0068]).
Masuda additionally teaches that the porous structure is desired to comprise a uniform coating, disclosing the claim limitations (Masuda, col 4 lines 25-30).
As to claim 5, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin additionally teaches a network of pores of diameter of 100 microns or less (Lopatin, [0068]).
Masuda additionally teaches pore diameters of 100 microns (Masuda, col 8 line 50).
As to claims 7-8, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin teaches that the first current density is about 3 A/cm2 (Lopatin, [0065]).
As to claim 11, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin additionally teaches that a second current density of 300 mA/cm2 can be used (0.3 A/cm2 is 300 mA/cm2) (Lopatin, [0067]).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin in view of Masuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0226110 of Gupta et al.
As to claims 9 and 10, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin and Masuda do not teach the timing of the first current density applied.
Gupta teaches of the deposition of a porous coating by multi-step electrodeposition (Gupta, Abstract).
Gupta additionally teaches that as per the requirement of the end result, the morphology (porosity, pore size, thickness) can be controlled by varying the parameters of the electrodeposition process (Gupta, [0089]). Gupta teaches that each step can be between 1 second to 2500 seconds to deposit the desired tailored coating (Gupta, [0089]), thus deeming obvious the claimed period of time (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopatin in view of Masuda so as to utilize the desired deposition time in order to control the end result thickness in depositing the porous coating in a multistep process.
As to claim 12, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin additionally teaches that the second current density is about 300 mA/cm2, but does not teach about 100 mA/cm2 (Lopatin, [0067]).
Masuda teaches that pulsed current densities for deposition of porous coating are at least 15 A/dm2 (which is 150 mA/cm2) (Masuda, col 4 lines 1-11).
Lopatin and Masuda do not teach the second current density is about 100 mA/cm2.
Gupta teaches of the deposition of a porous coating by multi-step electrodeposition (Gupta, Abstract).
Gupta additionally teaches that as per the requirement of the end result, the morphology (porosity, pore size, thickness) can be controlled by varying the parameters of the electrodeposition process (Gupta, [0089]). Gupta additionally teaches that current density between 10 mA/cm2 to 1200 mA/cm2 are utilized to control the porosity, pore diameter and thickness of the porous coating formed by the deposition process (Gupta, [0089]), (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopatin in view of Masuda as per Gupta so as to utilize the desired current density in deposition of the porous coating so as to be able to control the morphology of the end result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin in view of Masuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0230615 of Yaegashi et al.
As to claim 13, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin in view of Masuda do not teach the duty cycle.
Yaegashi teaches of the formation of a porous film (Yaegashi, [0004] – [0005]).
Yaegashi additionally teaches that in pulse plating to utilize a duty cycle of 0.1 to 10 (on/off time) such that pulse frequency can be controlled between 0.1 to 1000 Hz to control the formation of pores within the coating (Yaegashi, [0070] – [0073]).
As a one second on, 4 second off is a 0.25 on/off ratio with a frequency of 0.5 Hz, (1 pulse per 5 second…i.e. 1 on, 4 off), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopatin in view of Masuda as per Yaegashi so as to utilize the desired duty cycle in controlling the pore formation during the pulsed deposition process.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin in view of Masuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0226110 of Gupta et al and US 2018/0230615 of Yaegashi et al.
As to claim 14, Lopatin in view of Masuda teach to the method of claim 1.
Lopatin teaches a first current density of 3 A/cm2 (Lopatin, [0065]).
Lopatin in view Masuda do not teach the time of the first applied current density, the duty cycle of the second current or the amount of the second current density.
Gupta teaches of the deposition of a porous coating by multi-step electrodeposition (Gupta, Abstract).
Gupta additionally teaches that as per the requirement of the end result, the morphology (porosity, pore size, thickness) can be controlled by varying the parameters of the electrodeposition process (Gupta, [0089]). Gupta additionally teaches that current density between 10 mA/cm2 to 1200 mA/cm2 are utilized to control the porosity, pore diameter and thickness of the porous coating formed by the deposition process (Gupta, [0089]), (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Gupta also teaches that each step can be between 1 second to 2500 seconds to deposit the desired tailored coating (Gupta, [0089]), thus deeming obvious the claimed period of time (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopatin in view of Masuda as per Gupta so as to utilize the desired current density in deposition of the porous coating so as to be able to control the morphology of the end result.
Lopatin in view of Masuda and Gupta do not teach the duty cycle of the second current.
Yaegashi teaches of the formation of a porous film (Yaegashi, [0004] – [0005]).
Yaegashi additionally teaches that in pulse plating to utilize a duty cycle of 0.1 to 10 (on/off time) such that pulse frequency can be controlled between 0.1 to 1000 Hz to control the formation of pores within the coating (Yaegashi, [0070] – [0073]). It is further noted that Yaegashi additionally teaches pulsed current densities of 1 A/dm2 to 20 A/dm2 (10 A/dm2 is 100 mA/cm2) (Yaegashi, [0070]).
As 1 second on, 4 second off is a 0.25 on/off ratio with a frequency of 0.5 Hz, (one pulse per 5 second…i.e. 1 on, 4 off), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopatin in view of Masuda and Gupta as per Yaegashi so as to utilize the desired duty cycle in controlling the pore formation during the pulsed deposition process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is not motivation for the combination of Lopatin with Masuda as Masuda does not teach a two-step process.
However, it is noted that Lopatin teaches the two step process. The modification of the second step of Lopatin by Masuda would provide a process that produces a more uniform and controlled porous structure. This is shown as per Masuda, col 4 lines 1-51. It is noted that the deposition parameters of Masuda fall within those of Lopatin’s 2nd step, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not only find it to produce a predictable result in the combination of the references, but an improvement to the produced porous coating formed.
As to Applicant’s arguments of substituting a low current density method as per Masuda for the high current density 2nd of Lopatin, the current densities overlap, therefore the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s arguments on the uniform thickness or thickening of the coating, it is unclear how this is not disclosed by the method of the combination. The methods recite the same process, thus produce the same results. If there is specific porosity to the structure in each layer, this is not recited in the current claim set.
It seems Applicant actually desires a gradient porosity that is uniform across the cross section of the structure. The claims do not clearly state this at this time.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm EST.
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, Curtis 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights