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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 3/16/2026.
The rejection over Smith has been overcome in view of the response filed on 3/16/2026.
Other rejections have been maintained.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered references to Castro et al. (US 2018/0055643) and Petrov et al. (US 2021/0125894).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 2, 4-6, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0046512 to Newman et al. (hereinafter “Newman”).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11, Newman discloses that a spinal interbody device (IBD) comprises a solid wall that at least partially defines a boundary of the IBD; and a porous body attached to the solid wall (abstract). The porous body is obtained through selective laser sintering (SLS) or selective laser melting (SLM) of a powder bed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, a ceramic or a composite material (paragraphs 111 and 113). The porous body has a pore size of 100 to 700 microns with a mean pore size of 400 to 500 microns and a mean porosity of 55 to 65% (paragraph 70). The porous body comprises a plurality of interconnecting cells that collectively define a plurality of pores wherein the cells of the porous body a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (paragraph 9; and figures 1A and 1B). The geometric shape at least indicates that the pores have a regular and repeated shape and thus uniform pore size throughout the porous body. Hence, the pore size would inherently be within 10% of the mean pore size.
Newman teaches that blood is allowed to penetrate into the pores of the porous structure in view of the configuration of decreasing porosity from the outside toward the center of IBD (paragraph 95). The blood reads on the claimed second material.
As to claim 2, the pores of the porous body are impregnated with blood under a controlled atmosphere and/or pressure (paragraphs 95 and 103).
As to claim 4, a step of optimizing the length and cross-sectional dimension of the strut of the cell is performed using computer aided design before the selective laser printing steps (paragraphs 75 and 76).
As to claims 5 and 15, the porous structure is obtained through SLS or SLM of a powder bed of titanium or its alloys (paragraphs 111 and 113).
As to claim 6, the liquid state temperature of the blood is always less that of titanium porous body.
As to claim 7, the infiltrating blood is an organic compound.
As to claim 9, the cells of the porous structure have a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (paragraph 9, figures 1B and 2C). The porous structure is thus a lattice structure matrix.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 6,573,210 to Claussen et al. (hereinafter “Claussen”).
Newman discloses that the porous body is constructed from biocompatible metals, biocompatible polymers, or ceramics (paragraph 113).
Newman does not explicitly disclose the porous body formed from a ceramic/metal composite comprising cermet alumina with 5% aluminum metal incorporated therein.
Claussen, however, discloses an implant constructed from Alumina-Aluminum-Alloyed metal composite wherein the aluminum is present in an amount of 3 vol% to 7 vol% (examples 1-7). In particular, the aluminum is present in an amount of 5 vol% within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct an IBD of Newman from a ceramic/metal composite disclosed in Claussen motivated by the desire to obtain excellent wear resistance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2017/0095337 to Pasini et al. (hereinafter “Pasini”).
Newman discloses that the IBD has the porosity increases from the outer layer to the inner layer (paragraph 94). The porosity is graded and so is the density of the IBD. Newman also teaches that the length of each strut in cell may be increased or decreased to achieve the desire porosity (paragraph 70). The struts of the cells are varied in length and cross-sectional dimension to achieve the desired strain under normal operating conditions (paragraph 71). The cells of the porous body have a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (paragraph 9, figures 1B and 2C).
Newman does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the strut in each cell.
Pasini, however, discloses an implant comprising a porous microstructures comprising a plurality of cells and each comprising a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (figures 2A-2F). Each cell is made of a plurality of struts with a strut thickness of 200 microns within the claimed range (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct an IBD of Newman having a plurality of cells and each cell comprising a plurality of struts with a strut thickness of 200 microns as taught by Pasini motivated by the desire to effectively achieve the desired strain under normal operating conditions, thereby promoting tissue ingrown within the biocompatible implant material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that Newman fails to disclose infiltration of the second material into the matrix by capillary.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Newman discloses that blood is allowed to penetrate into the pores of the porous structure in view of the configuration of decreasing porosity from the outside toward the center of IBD (paragraph 95). The blood is thus infiltrated into the pores of the porous structure by capillary action. The blood reads on the claimed second material.
Applicant asserts that Newman fails to teach the first material having pore size in the range of 70 to 700 microns wherein at least 95% of the pores has the pore size within 10% of the range of 70 to 700 microns.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Newman discloses that the porous body has a pore size of 100 to 700 microns with a mean pore size of 400 to 500 microns and a mean porosity of 55 to 65% (paragraph 70), and comprises a plurality of interconnecting cells that collectively define a plurality of pores wherein the cells of the porous body a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (paragraph 9; and figures 1B and 2C). The geometric shape at least indicates that the pores have a regular, repeated shape and thus uniform pore size throughout the porous body. Thus, the pore size would inherently be within 10% of the mean pore size.
Applicant’s reiterated positions taken with respect to the other rejections: Newman in view of Claussen; and Newman in view Pasini. The examiner’s comments set forth above are equally pertinent in support of these rejections as well.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2021/0252193 to Rodgers, III et al. (hereinafter “Rodgers”).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11, Rodgers discloses an implant assembly comprising a biocompatible implant material, a porous metal coating bonded to each other by a polymeric binder layer (abstract). The biocompatible implant material comprises titanium, a titanium alloy, cobalt chromium, tantalum or a tantalum alloy (paragraph 48). The biocompatible implant material is obtained through SLS of a powder bed (paragraph 49). The biocompatible implant material comprises an open porous metal structure having a substantially uniform porosity, density, pore size and pore shape (paragraph 59). The open porous metal structure has interconnected pores with a uniform pore size of 70 to 80 microns (paragraph 42). The uniform pore size indicates the pore size would be within 10% of the mean pore size. The biocompatible implant material reads on the claimed first material.
The polymeric binder is infiltrated into the pores of the biocompatible material (paragraph 52). The polymeric binder is cut into a desired shape and put in contact with the biocompatible implant material or the porous metal coating (paragraph 57). Binding between the biocompatible implant material and the metal coating can be accomplished by heating the polymeric binder layer (paragraph 58). The heating causes the polymeric binder layer to soften and infuse into the pores of the biocompatible implant material by capillary (paragraphs 52 and 58). The polymeric binder layer is in a liquid form when it is infiltrated into the pores of the biocompatible implant material by capillary. The polymeric binder reads on the claimed second material.
As to claim 2, the polymeric binder is infiltrated into the pores of the biocompatible material (paragraph 52). The polymeric binder is cut into a desired shape and put in contact with the biocompatible implant material or the porous metal coating (paragraph 57). Binding between the biocompatible implant material and the metal coating can be accomplished by heating the polymeric binder layer at a temperature of 300 to 700oC (paragraph 58). The heating causes the polymeric binder layer to soften and infuse into the pores of the biocompatible implant material by capillary (paragraphs 52 and 58).
As to claims 3 and 14, the infiltration step is followed by drying (paragraph 58). The precursor of the polymeric binder is a precursor forming the polymeric binder by drying.
As to claim 4, binding between the biocompatible implant material and the metal coating can be accomplished by heating the polymeric binder layer at a temperature of 300 to 700oC (paragraph 58). The heating causes the polymeric binder layer to soften and infuse into the pores of the biocompatible implant material by capillary (paragraphs 52 and 58). The infiltration step is followed by drying.
As to claim 5, the biocompatible implant material comprises titanium, a titanium alloy, cobalt chromium, tantalum or a tantalum alloy (paragraph 48).
As to claim 6, the melting point of the polymeric binder is less than the melting point of the biocompatible implant material (paragraph 58).
As to claim 7, the polymeric binder comprises a polyurethane, an epoxy, a polyolefin, a polyether ether ketone or mixtures thereof (paragraph 55).
As to claim 9, the biocompatible implant material comprises a lattice structure lattice (figure 1).
As to claim 12, the polymeric binder is infiltrated into the pores of the biocompatible material (paragraph 52). The polymeric binder is cut into a desired shape and put in contact with the biocompatible implant material or the porous metal coating (paragraph 57). Binding between the biocompatible implant material and the metal coating can be accomplished by heating the polymeric binder layer at a temperature of 300 to 700oC (paragraph 58). The heating causes the polymeric binder layer to soften and infuse into the pores of the biocompatible implant material by capillary (paragraphs 52 and 58).
As to claim 13, the melting point of the polymeric binder (320oC) is at least 20% less than the melting point (1668oC) of the titanium or titanium alloy of the biocompatible implant material wherein the infiltration step is carried out at a temperature greater than the melting point of the polymeric binder (paragraph 58).
As to claim 15, the biocompatible implant material comprises titanium, a titanium alloy, cobalt chromium, tantalum or a tantalum alloy (paragraph 48).
As to claim 17, the polymeric binder comprises a polyurethane, an epoxy, a polyolefin, a polyether ether ketone or mixtures thereof (paragraph 55).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2018/0055643 to Castro et al. (hereinafter “Castro”).
Rodgers discloses that an open porous metal structure can have pore size being varied within the structure or within a portion thereof (paragraph 59).
Rodgers does not explicitly disclose a pore size gradient between ta ± 10% and tb ± 10% with ta in a range of 70 to 350 microns, and tb in a range of 350 to 700 microns.
Castro, however, discloses a three-dimensionally (3D) printed tissue engineering scaffold for tissue regeneration obtained using SLS or SLM of a powder bed (paragraph 70). The scaffold has a gradient pore size increasing from 0 to 50 microns in a first region, through 100 to 200 microns in a second region, to 500 to 1000 microns in a third region (paragraphs 52 and 57). In particular, the scaffold has a gradient pore size increasing from 50 microns in the first region, through 100 microns in the second region to 500 microns in the third region (paragraphs 52 and 57). The pore size in each region is uniform and within 10% of its mean pore size (figure 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a biocompatible implant material of Rodger having a gradient pore size as taught by Castro motivated by the desire to promote stem cell development and new tissue growth.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Claussen.
Rodgers discloses that the biocompatible implant material comprises titanium, a titanium alloy, cobalt chromium, tantalum or a tantalum alloy (paragraph 48).
Rodgers does not explicitly disclose the biocompatible implant material formed from a ceramic/metal composite comprising cermet alumina with 5% aluminum metal incorporated therein.
Claussen, however, discloses an implant constructed from Alumina-Aluminum-Alloyed metal composite wherein the aluminum is present in an amount of 3 vol% to 7 vol% (examples 1-7). In particular, the aluminum is present in an amount of 5 vol% within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a biocompatible implant material of Rodgers from a ceramic/metal composite disclosed in Claussen motivated by the desire to obtain excellent wear resistance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2017/0095337 to Pasini.
Rodgers discloses that the biocompatible implant material comprises an open porous metal structure having a substantially uniform porosity, density, pore size and pore shape (paragraph 59). The open porous metal structure has interconnected pores with a uniform pore size of 70 to 80 microns (paragraph 42). Alternatively, the open porous metal structure comprises different pore size, pore shape and/or porosity at different regions and surfaces of the structure (paragraph 59). Rodgers discloses that the open porous metal structure is a lattice structure matrix.
Rodgers does not explicitly disclose the lattice structure matrix is a beam structure matrix wherein a beam diameter ranges from 100 to 300 microns and wherein the beam structure matrix is graded of relative densities or topology graded.
Pasini, however, discloses an implant comprising a porous microstructures comprising a plurality of cells and each comprising a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (figures 2A-2F). Each cell is made of a plurality of struts with a strut thickness of 200 microns within the claimed range (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a biocompatible implant material of Rodger having a plurality of cells and each cell comprising a plurality of struts with a strut thickness of 200 microns as taught by Pasini motivated by the desire to effectively achieve the desired strain under normal operating conditions, thereby promoting tissue ingrown within the biocompatible implant material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that Rodgers fails to disclose the first material having pore size in the range of 70 to 700 microns wherein at least 95% of the pores has the pore size within 10% of the range of 70 to 700 microns.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rodgers discloses that the biocompatible implant material comprises an open porous metal structure having a substantially uniform porosity, density, pore size and pore shape (paragraph 59). The open porous metal structure has interconnected pores with a uniform pore size of 70 to 80 microns (paragraph 42). The uniform pore size indicates the pore size would inherently be within 10% of the pore size ranging from 70 to 80 microns. This meets the claimed requirement.
Applicant’s reiterated positions taken with respect to the other rejections: Rodgers in view of Claussen; and Rodgers in view Pasini. The examiner’s comments set forth above are equally pertinent in support of these rejections as well.
Rodgers does not teach the gradient in pore size. However, new combination of Rodgers and Castro suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0198939 to Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”) in view of Castro.
As to claims 1, 8, 10 and 11, Smith discloses a porous ceramic composite implant comprising a sintered porous body of a calcium phosphate compound; and a biodegradable polymer coating on the inner and outer surfaces of the porous ceramic body (paragraph 67). The porous ceramic matrix body having interconnected pores is obtained by selective laser sintering (SLS) of a bed of ceramic powder (paragraph 108). The porous ceramic body has a gradient density with the outermost regions being the most dense and the porosity increasing toward the center of the body (paragraphs 53 and 82). The porous ceramic body also has a continuous gradient in pore size as well (paragraph 83). The porous ceramic body has a porosity of about 200 to 600 microns (paragraph 32). The biodegradable polymer is dissolved in a solvent prior to infiltration. The porous ceramic body is placed into a mold and the biodegradable polymer/solvent is poured in the mold and allowed to infiltrate the pores and encapsulate the outer surfaces of the porous ceramic body. The mold is placed under reduced pressure and the solvent is allowed to evaporate until the biodegradable polymer coating of a desired thickness is applied to both the internal and external surfaces of the porous ceramic body (paragraph 87). The infiltration process is thus carried out by capillary.
Smith discloses that the porous ceramic body is created from a CAD model, the formation of components exhibiting gradient porosities, dense cortical shells and varying geometries is readily achievable (paragraph 109).
Smith does not explicitly disclose a pore size gradient between ta ± 10% and tb ± 10% with ta and tb, each in the range of 70 to 700 microns.
Castro, however, discloses a three-dimensionally (3D) printed tissue engineering scaffold for tissue regeneration obtained using selective laser sintering or selective laser melting (paragraph 70). The scaffold has a gradient pore size increasing from 0 to 50 microns in a first region, through 100 to 200 microns in a second region, to 500 to 1000 microns in a third region (paragraphs 52 and 57). In particular, the scaffold has a gradient pore size increasing from 50 microns in the first region, through 100 microns in the second region to 500 microns in the third region (paragraphs 52 and 57). The pore size in each region is uniform and within 10% of its mean pore size (figure 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a porous ceramic composite implant of Smith having a gradient pore size as taught by Castro motivated by the desire to promote stem cell development and new tissue growth.
As to claim 2, the infiltration step is carried out at an ambient temperature such that pharmaceutical agents can be incorporated in the polymer coating (paragraph 89).
As to claim 3, the solvent is allowed to evaporate until the biodegradable polymer coating of a desired thickness is applied to both the internal and external surfaces of the porous ceramic body (paragraph 87). Hence, the biodegradable polymer is formed by drying the precursor comprising the biodegradable polymer and the solvent.
As to claim 4, the biodegradable polymer is dissolved in a solvent prior to infiltration. The porous ceramic body is placed into a mold and the biodegradable polymer/solvent is poured in the mold and allowed to infiltrate the pores and encapsulate the outer surfaces of the porous ceramic body. The mold is placed under reduced pressure and the solvent is allowed to evaporate until the biodegradable polymer coating of a desired thickness is applied to both the internal and external surfaces of the porous ceramic body (paragraph 87). Hence, the infiltration step is followed by a drying step.
As to claim 5, the porous ceramic matrix body having interconnected pores is obtained by selective laser sintering (SLS) of a bed of ceramic powder (paragraph 108).
As to claim 6, the biodegradable polymer would have a lower melting point than the ceramic material of the porous matrix body.
As to claims 7 and 17, the biodegradable polymer is polyester corresponding to an organic compound (paragraph 88).
As to claim 9, the porous ceramic body is created from a CAD model, the formation of components exhibiting gradient porosities, dense cortical shells and varying geometries is readily achievable (paragraph 109). The porous ceramic body similar to cortical or long bone corresponding to the claimed lattice structure (paragraph 85).
As to claim 12, the biodegradable polymer is dissolved in a solvent prior to infiltration. The porous ceramic body is placed into a mold and the biodegradable polymer/solvent is poured in the mold and allowed to infiltrate the pores and encapsulate the outer surfaces of the porous ceramic body. The mold is placed under reduced pressure and the solvent is allowed to evaporate until the biodegradable polymer coating of a desired thickness is applied to both the internal and external surfaces of the porous ceramic body (paragraph 87). The infiltration process is thus carried out by capillary.
Smith does not explicitly disclose the infiltration step comprising: contacting only a lower portion of the matrix with the second material in liquid form, wherein the second material is drawn into the pores of an upper portion of the matrix by capillary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the biodegradable polymer solution to contact the lower surface of the porous ceramic body motivated by the desire to create a pathway for capillary forces to draw the biodegradable polymer solution up through the porous ceramic body. As the biodegradable polymer solution seeps into the upper regions, it can effectively fill the pores, ensuring optimal bonding and structural integrity throughout the porous ceramic body.
As to claim 14, the biodegradable polymer is dissolved in a solvent prior to infiltration. The porous ceramic body is placed into a mold and the biodegradable polymer/solvent is poured in the mold and allowed to infiltrate the pores and encapsulate the outer surfaces of the porous ceramic body. The mold is placed under reduced pressure and the solvent is allowed to evaporate until the biodegradable polymer coating of a desired thickness is applied to both the internal and external surfaces of the porous ceramic body (paragraph 87). The infiltration process is thus carried out by capillary.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Claussen.
Smith discloses that the sintered porous body is made of a ceramic material (paragraph 108).
Smith does not explicitly disclose the sintered porous body formed from a ceramic/metal composite comprising cermet alumina with 5% aluminum metal incorporated therein.
Claussen, however, discloses an implant constructed from Alumina-Aluminum-Alloyed metal composite wherein the aluminum is present in an amount of 3 vol% to 7 vol% (examples 1-7). In particular, the aluminum is present in an amount of 5 vol% within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a sintered porous body of Smith from a ceramic/metal composite disclosed in Claussen motivated by the desire to obtain excellent wear resistance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pasini.
Smith discloses that the porous ceramic body has a gradient density with the outermost regions being the most dense and the porosity increasing toward the center of the body (paragraphs 53 and 82). Smith does not explicitly disclose the porous ceramic body comprising a beam structure matrix wherein a beam diameter ranges from 100 to 300 microns and wherein the beam structure matrix is graded of relative densities or topology graded.
Pasini, however, discloses an implant comprising a porous microstructures comprising a plurality of cells and each comprising a geometric shape selected from the group consisting of diamond cubic, single cubic, tetrahedron, dodecahedron and octahedron (figures 2A-2F). Each cell is made of a plurality of struts with a strut thickness of 200 microns within the claimed range (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a porous ceramic body of Smith having a plurality of cells and each cell comprising a plurality of struts with a strut thickness of 200 microns as taught by Pasini motivated by the desire to effectively achieve the desired strain under normal operating conditions, thereby promoting tissue ingrown within the biocompatible implant material.
Response to Arguments
Smith does not explicitly disclose the first material having a gradient pore size. However, new combination of Smith and Castro suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0125894 to Petrov et al. (hereinafter “Petrov”).
As to claims 1, 8, and 10, Petrov discloses a two-phase heat transfer device for dissipating heat from a heat source comprising a main body with a multi-dimensional void network, and a heat transfer media infiltrating the voids by the capillary action (abstract; and paragraph 40). The main body is obtained through SLS of a powder bed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer or a composite material (paragraphs 28 and 37). The void network contains a continuous gradient in void size from a first pore size ranging from 20 to 150 microns to a second pore size ranging from 100 to 500 microns (paragraph 26). The pore size distribution shows at least two distinct maxima, one maximum in the first pore size range and the other maximum in the second pore size range (paragraph 26). Petrov also disclose the heat transfer media including water, ammonia, methanol, ethanol (paragraph 27) and each of which corresponding to the claimed liquid second material.
Petrov does not explicitly disclose the void network having a continuous gradient in void size from within 10% of a first pore size ranging from 70 to 350 microns to within 10% of a second pore size ranging from 350 to 700 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the main body of Petrov having a void network with a continuous gradient in void size from within 10% of a first pore size ranging from 70 to 350 microns to within 10% of a second pore size ranging from 350 to 700 microns, motivated by the desire to enhance heat dissipation efficiency.
As to claim 2, the heat transfer media is infiltrated into the voids of the main body by the capillary action under a controlled atmosphere (paragraph 40).
As to claim 5, the main body is obtained through SLS of a powder bed of a metal or a metal alloy (paragraphs 28 and 37).
As to claim 6, the liquid state temperature of water or ethanol is less than that of the metal or metal alloy (paragraphs 27 and 28).
As to claim 7, the heat transfer medium comprises ammonia or ethanol and each of which corresponding to the claimed inorganic or organic compound (paragraph 27).
As to claim 9, the main body comprises an ordered quadratic or hexagonal lattice (paragraph 25).
As to claim 12, the void network is arranged such that the heat transfer medium flows forwards the center of the base layer. That is, the void network is adapted by its 3D shape and by its void size gradient to the cooling needs of the power semiconductor module, which has a higher cooling need in a hot spot region 22 near the center of the base layer (paragraph 54 and figure 1). The heat transfer medium is drawn into the voids of the main body by capillary (paragraphs 40 and 52).
As to claim 15, the main body is obtained through SLS of a powder bed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer or a composite material (paragraphs 28 and 37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights