DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 5, 8-13, and 15 have been withdrawn. New claim(s) 20 has been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/29/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/25/26 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20100010638 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Jones teaches that “the present invention relates to a method of forming an implant having a porous tissue ingrowth structure and a bearing support structure, and that the method may include depositing a first layer of a metal powder onto a substrate” (which reads upon “a method for additive manufacturing of a component by selective laser melting or electron beam melting”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Jones teaches using “Magics V8.05 (Materialise) CAD software package used for manipulating STL files and preparing builds for Rapid Manufacture” (which reads upon “using manufacturing instructions (CAM) provided for the additive, powder bed-based manufacturing of a component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0118], Table 6). Jones teaches that “as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, the device for implantation into the body may be in the form of an acetabular cup 10” (which reads upon “defining a geometry of the component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0051]). Jones teaches that “the acetabular cup 10 preferably includes a metal insert 11 comprised of a bearing support structure 12, a bone ingrowth structure 14 and an intermediate structure 16” (paragraph [0051]). Jones teaches that “the bone ingrowth structure 14, as well as the bearing support structure 12 and intermediate structure 16 of the acetabular cup 10 may be constructed using a direct laser remelt process as, for example, described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/704,270, filed Nov. 7, 2003 entitled “Laser-Produced Porous Surface,” and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/027,421, filed Dec. 30, 2004, entitled “Laser-Produced Porous Structure,” the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference” (which reads upon “the additive, powder bed-based manufacturing of a component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0053]). Jones teaches that “the intermediate structure 16 is approximately 0.1 mm thick and is substantially fully dense” (which reads upon “comprising a solid material area”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0054]). Jones teaches that “the acetabular cup may be constructed with a two tier structure, and that as shown in FIG. 18, which is a cross section of an acetabular cup 110, the two tier structure includes a metal insert 111 having a bone ingrowth structure 114 and a bearing support structure 112” (paragraph [0121]). Jones teaches that “each structure is adapted for its own purpose, i.e., the bone ingrowth structure 14 has a porosity adapted for bone ingrowth and the bearing support structure 12 has a porosity suited for anchoring a polymeric material or additional material as discussed herein” (paragraph [0121]). Jones teaches that “although, the figure illustrates a demarcation between the two structures, highlighting the difference in porosity between the two, the actual metal insert 111 may have a graded porosity which increases, decreases or some combination of the two along an axis 119 passing through the center of the acetabular cup 110” (which reads upon “wherein the transition area is between the solid material area and the porous component area; that a porosity gradient of the structure of the component is formed between the solid material area of the component and the porous component area such that a porosity varies from a first porosity value in the solid material area to a second porosity value in the porous component area that is greater than the first porosity value”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon “porosity is formed continuously or infinitely gradually varying in the transition area from the first porosity value to the second porosity value”, as recited in instant claim 4; paragraph [0122]; the several layers closest to the intermediate structure (solid material) reads upon the transition area; the next several layers read on the porous component area).
Jones teaches a graded porosity. Jones teaches that many laser parameters may be varied in the production of an implant. Jones teaches that “the pore density, pore size and pore size distribution can be controlled from one location on the structure to another, and that it is important to note that successive powder layers can differ in porosity by varying factors used for laser scanning powder layers” (paragraph [0089]).
Jones teaches that “the key laser parameters varied for forming the three-dimensional metallic porous structures are: (a) Laser scanning speed (v.) in (mms−1), which controls the rate at which the laser traverses the powder bed; (b) Laser power, P(W), which in conjunction with the laser spot size controls the intensity of the laser beam, that the spot size was kept constant throughout the experiment; (c) Frequency, (Hz) or pulse repetition rate, that this variable controls the number of laser pulses per second, and that a lower frequency delivers a higher peak power and vice versa” (which reads upon “on the basis of CAD data, varying irradiation parameters for the manufacturing of the component, comprising an irradiation power, a scanning speed, a scanning distance, and a layer thickness within the transition area in such a way”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0068]). Jones teaches the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
251
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jones teaches that “the above formula gives an indication of how the physical parameters can vary the quantity of energy absorbed by the powder bed; That is, if the melted powder has limited cohesion, e.g. insufficient melting, the parameters can be varied to concentrate the energy supply to the powder; High Andrew numbers result in reduced pore coverage and an increase in pore size due to the effects of increased melt volume and flow; Low Andrew numbers result in low melt volume, high pore density and small pores, and that current satisfactory Andrew numbers are approximately 0.3 J/mm−2 to 8 J/mm−2 and are applicable to many alternative laser sources” (paragraph [0072]). Jones teaches that “it is possible to use a higher powered laser with increased scanning speed and obtain an Andrew number within the working range stated above” (paragraph [0072]). Jones teaches that “the laser power may be varied between 5 W and 1000 W” (which reads upon “reducing an irradiation power in the transition area from the solid material area to the porous component area”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0071]). Jones teaches that “in the preceding examples, the object has been to provide a metal insert having a porosity on a base but the present invention can also be used to provide a non-porous structure on such a base to form a three-dimensional structure” (paragraph [0081]). Jones teaches that “the same techniques can be utilized for the materials concerned but the laser processing parameters can be appropriately selected so that a substantially solid non-porous structure is achieved” (paragraph [0081]; porosity is controlled by selecting appropriate laser processing parameters). Jones teaches that “such an article can be produced so that it has a graded porosity of, e.g., non-porous through various degrees of porosity to the outer surface layer” (paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation power to obtain a graded porosity because laser power is one of the key laser parameters which may be varied when forming the three-dimensional metallic porous structures identified by Jones, and because Jones specifically teaches varying the laser power in paragraph [0071]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between increasing and decreasing the irradiation power in the transition area from the solid material area to the porous component area with a reasonable expectation of success, as reducing the power will reduce the Andrew number, and Jones teaches how to optimize the Andrew number.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 14, Jones teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Jones teaches that “the intermediate structure 16 is approximately 0.1 mm thick and is substantially fully dense” (which reads upon “the first porosity value that is approximately 0 in the solid material area”, as recited in instant claim 3; paragraph [0054]). Jones teaches that “the file may then be divided into three separate solid volumes having a 1.1 mm thick outer layer—this layer will be used to create the 80% porous bone ingrowth surface; 0.1 mm thick intermediate layer—this layer will be a fully dense layer that supports the bone ingrowth surface; and 0.8 mm thick inner layer—this will be used to create an interlock surface for a polymer injection molding, and that the three layers, when completed, will comprise the metal insert 11 of the acetabular cup” (paragraph [0119]; porosity of the outer surface layer is 80%). Jones teaches that “such an article can be produced so that it has a graded porosity of, e.g., non-porous through various degrees of porosity to the outer surface layer” (paragraph [0083]; in going from a non-porous area to an 80% porosity in a graded way, the article will include an area with a porosity of 20%, it is that area which reads on the porous component area).
Regarding claims 6-7, Jones teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Jones teaches that “the pore density, pore size and pore size distribution can be controlled from one location on the structure to another, and that it is important to note that successive powder layers can differ in porosity by varying factors used for laser scanning powder layers” (paragraph [0089]). Jones teaches that “a higher laser power would also necessitate increasing the speed of the laser scan speed in order to produce the desired melting of the powder layer” (paragraph [0066]). Jones teaches that “this allowed the processing parameter, beam overlap, to be used to control the space between successive scan lines, that is, with a 100 μm laser spot size, an overlap of −200% produces a 100 μm gap between scans” (paragraph [0066]; the space between successive scan lines reads on scanning distance, see Applicant’s FIG. 3 and associated discussion). Jones teaches that “speed and beam overlap variations were used to modify the specific energy density being applied to the powder bed and change the characteristics of the final structure” (paragraph [0067]). Jones teaches that “the same techniques can be utilized for the materials concerned but the laser processing parameters can be appropriately selected so that a substantially solid non-porous structure is achieved” (paragraph [0081]). Jones teaches that porosity is controlled by selecting appropriate laser processing parameters. Jones teaches that speed and beam overlap are among the laser processing parameters to be selected and that the processing parameter, beam overlap, can be used to control the space between successive scan lines. Jones teaches that “we have chosen to concern ourselves with the Andrew number using scan spacing as a calculating factor” (paragraph [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the speed and beam overlap to obtain a graded porosity because Jones specifically teaches varying the speed and beam overlap in paragraph [0067]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between increasing and decreasing the speed and beam overlap in the transition area from the solid material area to the porous component area with a reasonable expectation of success, as reducing the speed will increase the Andrew number, and Jones teaches how to optimize the Andrew number.
Regarding claims 16-18, Jones teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Jones teaches that “the pore density, pore size and pore size distribution can be controlled from one location on the structure to another, and that it is important to note that successive powder layers can differ in porosity by varying factors used for laser scanning powder layers” (paragraph [0089]). It should be noted that irradiation power and scanning speed are result effective variables. Jones teaches that “the key laser parameters varied for forming the three-dimensional metallic porous structures are: (a) Laser scanning speed (v.) in (mms−1), which controls the rate at which the laser traverses the powder bed; (b) Laser power, P(W), which in conjunction with the laser spot size controls the intensity of the laser beam, that the spot size was kept constant throughout the experiment; (c) Frequency, (Hz) or pulse repetition rate, that this variable controls the number of laser pulses per second, and that a lower frequency delivers a higher peak power and vice versa” (paragraph [0068]). Jones teaches the Andrew Number equation as reproduced above.
Jones teaches that “the above formula gives an indication of how the physical parameters can vary the quantity of energy absorbed by the powder bed; That is, if the melted powder has limited cohesion, e.g. insufficient melting, the parameters can be varied to concentrate the energy supply to the powder; High Andrew numbers result in reduced pore coverage and an increase in pore size due to the effects of increased melt volume and flow; Low Andrew numbers result in low melt volume, high pore density and small pores, and that current satisfactory Andrew numbers are approximately 0.3 J/mm−2 to 8 J/mm−2 and are applicable to many alternative laser sources” (paragraph [0072]). Jones teaches that “it is possible to use a higher powered laser with increased scanning speed and obtain an Andrew number within the working range stated above” (paragraph [0072]). Jones teaches that “the laser power may be varied between 5 W and 1000 W” (paragraph [0071]). Jones teaches that “in the preceding examples, the object has been to provide a metal insert having a porosity on a base but the present invention can also be used to provide a non-porous structure on such a base to form a three-dimensional structure” (paragraph [0081]). Jones teaches that “the same techniques can be utilized for the materials concerned but the laser processing parameters can be appropriately selected so that a substantially solid non-porous structure is achieved” (paragraph [0081]; porosity is controlled by selecting appropriate laser processing parameters). Jones teaches that “such an article can be produced so that it has a graded porosity of, e.g., non-porous through various degrees of porosity to the outer surface layer” (paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform the method using the claimed relationships between the laser parameters since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the Andrew number while controlling the gradient of porosity in the implant.
Regarding claim 19, Jones teaches the method of claim 18 as stated above. Jones teaches that “the actual metal insert 111 may have a graded porosity which increases, decreases or some combination of the two along an axis 119 passing through the center of the acetabular cup 110” (paragraph [0122]). Jones FIG. 18 shows that the porosity is mirrored symmetrically about a middle (axis 119) of the part. Jones teaches that “the pore density, pore size and pore size distribution can be controlled from one location on the structure to another, and that it is important to note that successive powder layers can differ in porosity by varying factors used for laser scanning powder layers” (paragraph [0089]). Because Jones teaches that the porosity is mirrored and the porosity is controlled by controlling the laser scanning parameters, it would be obvious to mirror the laser scanning parameters about axis 119 in order to create the desired porosity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns et al. (US 20190299290 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kuhns teaches “an additive manufacturing method” (which reads upon “a method for additive manufacturing of a component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Kuhns teaches “scanning selectively the energy with the laser settings and build profile at least once across the powder to at least partially sinter or at least partially melt the powder exposed to the energy and at least partially bind the powder with prior layers and adjacent areas” (which reads upon “by selective laser melting or electron beam melting”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Kuhns teaches that “Applicants' techniques can use simple solid CAD models and introduce the porosity through the print “driver” parameters” (which reads upon “using manufacturing instructions (CAM) provided for the additive, powder bed-based manufacturing of a component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0051]). Kuhns teaches that “a model with a lot of lattice structures can be much more complex than a solid part of the same outer geometry” (which reads upon “comprising defining a geometry of the component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0050]). Kuhns teaches “wherein the step of scanning creates a porous region in the part at first energy source settings and a first build profile, a denser region in the part at second energy source settings and a second build profile, and a full penetration mechanically bonded interface between the porous region and the denser region, and the first build profile and the second build profile has relatively no scan separation distance between them at the full penetration mechanically bonded interface” (which reads upon “comprising a solid material area, a transition area, and a porous component area on the basis of CAD data, wherein the transition area is between the solid material area and the porous component area, varying irradiation parameters for the manufacturing of the component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0014]). Kuhns teaches that “multiple contour parameters designed to give good surface finish can be introduced in a partially overlapping manner inward from the surfaces with each contour line using its own laser power and travel speed settings to allow parameter variation on a small scale and therefore a smoothly graded porosity” (which reads upon “comprising an irradiation power, a scanning speed, a scanning distance, and a layer thickness within the transition area in such a way that a porosity gradient of the structure of the component is formed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0052]). Kuhns teaches that “the energy absorption is lowered by a faster scan speed or reduced power” (which reads upon “varying irradiation parameters for the manufacturing of the component, comprising an irradiation power, a scanning speed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]). Kuhns teaches that “this strategy forms the porosity by either partially melting the powder or partially solid state sintering the powder so as to create a network of powder particles that are bound together by joined/necked contacting areas” (paragraph [0057]). Kuhns teaches that “taken together with the parameters discussed above, the FIG. 5B strategy enables Applicants' to finely control the porosity in a material to the needs of the application” (paragraph [0057]). Kuhns teaches that “Applicant can additively manufacture non-uniform porous material in-situ with fully dense material for the in situ additive manufacturing of both porous and fully dense material in the same part so that no secondary process is required, and that Applicants injector disk is manufactured together with the fully dense exterior as a single piece” (which reads upon “between the solid material area of the component and the porous component area”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0070]; fully dense reads on solid material). Kuhns teaches “having a gradient of porosity on the porous disk” (which reads upon “such that a porosity varies from a first porosity value in the solid material area to a second porosity value in the porous component area that is greater than the first porosity value, wherein at least one irradiation parameter is selected in such a way that the structure of the component in the transition area has a gradually varying porosity between the first porosity value that is approximately 0 in the solid material area to the second porosity value of the porous component area”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0071]). Kuhns teaches that “at the porous (40% porosity)/fully dense (0% porosity) interface, the porosity does not decrease or increase on the side of the interface that is already fully dense but does decrease on the porous side as the interface is approached” (which reads upon “within the transition area in such a way that a porosity gradient of the structure of the component is formed between the solid material area of the component and the porous component area such that a porosity varies from a first porosity value in the solid material area to a second porosity value in the porous component area that is greater than the first porosity value”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0078] and 16A). Kuhns teaches that “FIG. 10C shows sample 358 with different porous layers on top of a fully dense layer” (which reads upon “solid material area”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0109]). Kuhns teaches that “FIG. 10D shows gradations in layers from porous to dense, and that in reality, this can be even finer gradation across the sample” (which reads upon “the structure of the component in the transition area has a gradually varying porosity between the first porosity value that is approximately 0 in the solid material area to the second porosity value of the porous component area”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0109]). Kuhns teaches that “the porosity of the inner layer is 10-20%” (which reads upon “the second porosity value of the porous component area of approximately 20%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Kuhns teaches that “the part is a combustion chamber line or a hot wall for a rocket engine” (which reads upon “wherein the component is a component to be cooled in a hot gas path of a turbomachine comprising one of a stationary gas turbine, a turbine blade, a heat shield component of a combustion chamber, a resonator component and an acoustic damping combustion component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Kuhns teaches that “FIGS. 15A-15C are diagrams of experimental data showing how porosity, laser power input, density and Young's modulus vary relative to each other” (paragraph [0033]; laser power input controls porosity). Kuhns teaches that “the laser power and speed can be controlled so that the line may be anywhere from fully dense to partially dense” (paragraph [0059]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the irradiation power in the transition area from a constant high value in the solid material area to a constant low value in the porous component area because the laser power and speed can be controlled so that the line may be anywhere from fully dense to partially dense. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between altering the laser power, altering the speed, and altering the laser power and speed in the transition area from the solid material area to the porous component area with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to solving a problem in the forming of a component to be used in a hot gas path of a turbomachine (See: Substitute Specification at paragraph [0003]) (remarks, page 9). Applicant argues that Jones is not directed to forming a component for use in a hot gas path of a turbomachine and instead is directed to forming a porous component for use in a medical implant (remarks, page 9). Applicant further argues that as a result, unlike the claimed component with the transition area that gradually varies the porosity from about 0% at the solid area to about 20% in the porous component area, Jones teaches an abrupt variation in the porosity from over 60% in the bone ingrowth structure 14 to about 0% in the intermediate structure 16 and then back to over 80% in the bearing support structure 12 (remarks, pages 9-10). Applicant argues that this is consistent with the vastly different application and thus vastly different criteria for the porosity of the various structures 12, 14, 16 of the cup 10 in Jones compared with the different areas of the component of the claimed invention (remarks, page 10). This is not found convincing because Applicant is in control of the breadth of the claims. Claim 1 is currently broad enough to read on the medical implant of Jones, as described above.
Applicant argues that claim 1 was amended to clarify that the transition area is between the solid material area and the porous component area, and that since the bone ingrowth structure 114 is not between the intermediate structure 16 (alleged solid material area) and the bearing support structure 112 (alleged porous component area), the bone ingrowth structure 114 does not disclosed the recited transition area of claim 1 (remarks, page 11). This is not found convincing because Jones teaches that “although, the figure illustrates a demarcation between the two structures, highlighting the difference in porosity between the two, the actual metal insert 111 may have a graded porosity which increases, decreases or some combination of the two along an axis 119 passing through the center of the acetabular cup 110” (paragraph [0122]). The several layers closest to the intermediate structure (solid material) reads upon the transition area; the next several layers read on the porous component area, thus the transition area is between the solid material area and the porous component area.
Applicant argues that Jones does not disclose that irradiation parameters are varied within the bone ingrowth structure 114 in such a way that a porosity gradient is formed (remarks, page 11). This is not found convincing because Jones teaches wherein said bone ingrowth structure has a graded porosity (claim 10).
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights