DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 12, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended, Claim 4 and 8 are cancelled and Claim 9 is newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
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, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 12, 2023, JP 2019163503 A, US 20210114099 A1 used as English Equivalent) in view of Kanano (JP 2016094663 A, English machine translation provided), Sagawa (previously cited, 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 consists essentially of one or more of 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 secondary batteries (para. [0002]), and Kanano teaches that sintered porous titanium electrode plates for secondary batteries comprise a practical size of 100-500mm widths and 200-1000mm lengths, or areas of 200-5000cm2 (para. [0026]).
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 200-5000cm2, which reads on the claimed 36cm2 or more, thereby producing an electrode of 200-5000cm2 area, as taught by Kanano, for the invention disclosed by Goto, because this size would be appropriate and practical for an electrode plate in a secondary battery (see teachings by Goto and Kanano 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Goto discloses sintering at 900C-100C (para. [0063]), which reads on the claimed range of 800C or more, and sintering for 1 hour, which reads on the claimed 1-6 hours (para. [0088]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 12, 2023, JP 2019163503 A, US 20210114099 A1 used as English Equivalent) in view of Kanano (JP 2016094663 A, English machine translation provided), Sagawa (previously cited, 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 June 12, 2026, with respect to Claim 1, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Goto in view of Tsuji, Sagawa and Chippendale (and Nakamura - Claim 5), have been fully considered. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goto in view of Kanano, Sagawa and Chippendale (and Nakamura - Claim 5), as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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).
Tsuji (US 20030203283 A1): teaches example electrode plate sizes for a nickel-metal hydride battery ranging from 35mmx60mm (91cm2) to 35x700mm (245 cm2) (Table 1).
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
Prosecution Insights