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 and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 16, 2025, are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4 are amended, Claim 3 is cancelled and Claims 7-8 are newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites a variation change rate of the porous metal body, including parameters (A) regarding a manufacturing the porous metal body by a first process and also parameters (B) regarding the manufacturing of the porous metal body manufacturing by additional (N+1th) processes and reuse of the molding plate. It is unclear if the claim is attempting to recite wherein the process steps of Claim 1 are somehow repeated for porous metal body since only one porous metal body is positively recited, or if additional (a plurality of) porous metal bodies are require to be manufactured by the claims. In other words, the claims only positively recite the manufacture of a single porous metal body and only positively recite the method steps defined in Claim 1 (a first process), and does not positively recite a step for the reuse of the molding plate. It is therefore unclear what the rate of change would be to meet the claimed limitations when only a single porous metal body is manufactured by a first process, as currently claimed and recited, and it is unclear if Claim 8 is further reciting additional method steps or not and the reuse of the molding step therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 12, 2023, JP 2019163503 A, US 20210114099 A1 used as English Equivalent) in view of Tsuji (US 20030203283 A1), Sagawa (US 20110070118 A1) and Chippendale (previously cited, US 20220008998 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Goto discloses a method for manufacturing a porous metal body (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a metal powder in a dry process onto a molding plate made of carbon (Abstract; para. [0028]; para. [0062]),
sintering the deposited powder on the molding plate (para. [0066]),
wherein the depositing of metal powder and the sintering use the same molding plate (para. [0066]),
wherein between the depositing step and the sintering step, the thickness of the deposited layer is adjusted (para. [0061] and [0088], overflow is leveled off), and
wherein the metal powder comprises one or more selected from pure titanium powder and titanium alloy powder (Abstract; para. [0033]).
Goto discloses wherein the mold produces a specimen size with an area of 15mm x 50mm, indicating that the mold would comprise an area of a surface for depositing the metal powder of 7.5 cm2. Goto does not expressly disclose an area of 36cm2 or more; however, such a modification would require a mere change in size, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Further, Goto teaches wherein the sintered metal is used as an electrode plate for a nickel-metal hydride battery (para. [0002]), and Tsuji teaches example electrode plate sizes for a nickel-metal hydride battery ranging from 35mmx60mm (91cm2) to 35x700mm (245 cm2) (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a mold with a depositing area of 91-245cm2, which reads on the claimed 36cm2 or more, thereby producing an electrode of 91-245cm2 area, as taught by Tsuji, for the invention disclosed by Goto, because this size would be appropriate for an electrode plate in a nickel-metal hydride battery (see teaching by Goto and Tsuji above).
Goto does not disclose the thickness of the molding plate.
Sagawa teaches a carbon plate for sintering deposited metal powder which comprises a thickness of 1-10mm in order to balance strength and thermal conduction (para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a molding plate thickness of 1-10mm, which reads on the claimed 3-15mm, as taught by Sagawa, for the invention disclose by Goto, in order to balance strength with thermal conduction. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Goto discloses wherein no pressure is applied to the surface of the metal powder, but fails to disclose pressing at least a part of edge portions of the surface of the molding plate downward and pressing only the molding plate so that the surface of the molding plate is flattened.
Chippendale teaches wherein downward forces are applied to the edges of a molding plate in order to keep the molding plate flat, reduce distortion and buckling, and to facilitate efficient deposition of material and subsequent processes such as machining (para. [0013]; para. [0073]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the force to be an downwards acting force in order to keep the plate flat. While Chippendale is directed to the molding plate of an additive manufacturing process using powder and melting, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the teaching to be applicable to other processes using substrates on which powder and material is deposited and distributed on, and wherein subsequent processes are performed thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a downward force on the edges of the molding plate during powder deposition and subsequent processes (leveling), as taught by Chippendale, for the invention disclosed by Goto, in order to keep the molding plate flat, reduce distortion and buckling, and to facilitate efficient deposition of powder and subsequent processes such as leveling (see teaching above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that only the molding plate would be pressed and the powder would not comprise, as desired by Goto, and as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Goto discloses wherein sintering the metal powder is at a temperature of 800C or more (para. [0063]).
Regarding Claim 4, Goto discloses wherein the metal powder comprises a titanium power formed from mixing metallic titanium and an alloy metal wherein the alloy metal is one of Fe (para. [0033]), which reads on the claimed iron alloy powder. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 6, Goto discloses wherein the porous metal body specimen has a thickness of 0.5mm, which reads on the claimed range of 0.1-1.0mm (para. [0043]; see also Tsuji, Table 1, example electrode thicknesses ranging from 0.172-0.533mm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 7, Goto discloses wherein the metal powder comprise pure titanium powder (para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, Goto fails to disclose the claimed variation change rate of the porous metal body.
However, the metal powder material (titanium alloy powder), molding plate type (carbon), molding area size and molding plate thickness (greater than 36cm2, and up to 10mm thick), and molding plate shape and structure (flattened by pressing at edges) of Goto in view of Tsuji, Sagawa and Chippendale are the same as the instant invention, and it would be obvious for the molding plate in a repeated process to behave the same as claimed because the same processes and materials are used.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 12, 2023, JP 2019163503 A, US 20210114099 A1 used as English Equivalent) in view of Tsuji (US 20030203283 A1), Sagawa (US 20110070118 A1) and Chippendale (previously cited, US 20220008998 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Nakamura (previously cited, US 20020051726 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Goto fails to disclose sintering multiple molding plates with metal powder thereon in the heating furnace at a time.
Nakamura teaches sintering a plurality of compacts in the same furnace in order to enable efficient sintering (para. [0096]; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sintered multiple compacts/molding plates, as taught by Nakamura, for the invention disclosed by Goto, in order to improve sintering efficiency (see teaching above). Nakamura does not disclose wherein 30 or more compacts are sintered at a time in the heating furnace, however, such a modification would require a mere duplication in parts, which is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 16, 2025, with respect to Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-6, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Youn in view of Seta and over Youn in view of Lu, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the metal composition and the pressing configuration. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goto in view of Tsuji, Sagawa and Chippendale, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Chippendale:
Applicant argues that the teaching of Chippendale is not applicable to dry casting metal powder because Chippendale is directed to an AM processes which melts the powder.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Chippendale and Goto are both directed to depositing material on a substrate surface which is intended to be flat. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate the teaching by Chippendale for securing a flat surface to reduce distortion and buckling and to facilitate material deposition and other post-deposition processes. Applicant does not appear to find fault with the motivation for the applied teaching.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moon (KR 20200053288 A, English translation provided): teaches wherein pressing includes pressing against the powder surface and also a setter located at the edges between mold plates (Fig. 1).
Seta (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 12, 2023, JP H06302322 A, English Machine Translation provided): teaches a typical area for a graphite plate used for an electrode comprising compacted powder on the surface thereof is 1m2 (para. [0011]).
Lu (US 4414092 A): teaches wherein carbon substrates (carbon paper substrates) used to form electrodes comprise a thickness of 0.03-0.100 cm (0.3-1mm) and an area of 2x2 inches (25.8 cm2) to 12x15inches (1161 cm2) in order to prevent a substrate which is too thin and porous while balancing for cell voltage increase (Col. 3, lines 1-10).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735