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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 06/17/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 12 is amended, claims 13-16 are added and claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2007151805 A).
Claim 1: Koichi teaches a metal porous thin plate 21 produced by forming a slurry S containing metal powder into a sheet shape, wherein the metal porous thin plate has a porosity of 40-97% (Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b; and page 3, lines 16-23). Koichi teaches a process comprising steps of decomposing, degreasing and/or sintering in order to obtain the metal porous thin plate 21 (page 11, lines 11-17). Koichi does not expressly teach the metal porous thin plate 21 contains components other than the metal porous body. Koichi teaches the slurry S can be water (page 6, line 5); and the presence of a foaming agent is optional (page 7, lines 33-36).
Claim 2: Koichi teaches the particle size of the metal powder is 0.5-50 µm (page 5, lines 21).
Claim 3: Koichi teaches the metal porous thin plate has a porosity of 40-97% (page 3, line 21).
Claim 6: Koichi teaches a process comprising steps of decomposing, degreasing and/or sintering in order to obtain the metal porous thin plate 21 (page 11, lines 11-17). Koichi does not expressly teach the metal porous thin plate 21 contains components other than the metal porous body. Koichi teaches the slurry S contains water (page 6, line 5); and the presence of a foaming agent is optional (page 7, lines 33-36).
Claim 7: Koichi teaches does not expressly teach that the metal porous thin plate 21 includes a metal foil.
Claim 8: The claimed “for an interfacial bonding material” is an intended use; and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed article is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 9: The claimed “for a thermal interface material” is an intended use; and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed article is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 10: Koichi teaches the metal porous thin plate 21 (32) is joined to a medical device body 31 (Fig. 2 and page 8, lines 12-14). The medical device body 31 meets the claimed carrier substrate.
Claim 11: Koichi teaches the metal porous thin plate 21 (32) is bonded to a part of the surface of the medical device body 31 depending on the purpose (page 9, lines 26-27), but does not teach applying the metal porous thin plate 21 (32) in a pattern form. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the metal porous thin plate in a pattern form, since applicant has not disclosed that the pattern form solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with non-pattern form.
Claims 14 and 15: The process by which the metal porous thin plate 21 is formed, (i.e., vapor deposition process) is not dispositive of the issue of the patentability of the instant article claims.
Claim 16: Koichi teaches the slurry S is formed in to a thin sheet using a doctor blade 14 (page 10, lines 9-11); and a required thickness is formed between a carrier sheet 12 and the doctor blade 14 (page 10, lines 12-15). Koichi teaches the gap between the carrier sheet 12 and the doctor blade 14 can be 100-1500 µm (page 10, line 16), wherein this thickness range includes the claimed 144 µm or less.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2007151805 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo (US 2008/0118385 A1).
Koichi teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 4: Koichi does not teach silver as the metal material. However, Joo teaches a porous metal made of silver, titanium or stainless steel [0020]. Joo shows that silver is an equivalent material known in the porous metal art. Therefore, because titanium, stainless steel and silver were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute silver for titanium or stainless steel.
Claim 5: With respect to the mass per unit area, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the mass per unit area of the porous metal, and the motivation would be to control density and porosity of the porous metal. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichi et al. (JP 2007151805 A) in view of Joo (US 2008/0118385 A1).
Claim 13: Koichi teaches a metal porous thin plate 21 produced by forming a slurry S containing metal powder into a sheet shape, wherein the metal porous thin plate has a porosity of 40-97% (Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b; and page 3, lines 16-23). Koichi teaches a process comprising steps of decomposing, degreasing and/or sintering in order to obtain the metal porous thin plate 21 (page 11, lines 11-17). Koichi does not expressly teach the metal porous thin plate 21 contains components other than the metal porous body. Koichi teaches the slurry S contains water (page 6, line 5); and the presence of a foaming agent is optional (page 7, lines 33-36). Koichi does not teach silver as the metal material. However, Joo teaches a porous metal made of silver, titanium or stainless steel [0020]. Joo shows that silver is an equivalent material known in the porous metal art. Therefore, because titanium, stainless steel and silver were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute silver for titanium or stainless steel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 13-16 are included in the above prior art rejections. The claimed silver is taught in the reference of Joo [0020]; and the claimed thickness is taught in the reference of Koichi (page 10, lines 14-16). See prior art rejections above.
Applicant’s argument is based on that Koichi discloses that the metal porous thin plate 21 is obtained by subjecting a green sheet produced from a slurry containing a metal powder and an organic material such as a resin binder to decomposition and degreasing by holding at a temperature in the range of 350 to 600°C, followed by sintering; however, even in the manufacturing method disclosed in Koichi, the organic substances cannot be completely removed because carbon remains in the green sheet after decomposition and degreasing, and even after subsequent sintering following the decomposition and degreasing, carbon remains in the resultant sintered body. This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. Koichi teaches the slurry S can be water (page 6, line 5); and the presence of a foaming agent is optional (page 7, lines 33-36). In addition, Applicant’s argument relies on process steps which were not part of the elected product claims. The term porous in the metal porous plate 21 implies the presence of voids in the metal porous plate 21. There is no express teaching or suggestion in the reference of Koichi that a C residue is present in the metal porous plate 21 (see also page 10, line 1; and page 11, lines 11-17).
Applicant further argued that the metal porous thin plate disclosed in Koichi is intended for use in vivo; therefore, there is a technical disincentive to substituting silver for the materials disclosed in Koichi based on Joo. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. Koichi teaches a porous metal plate 21 (see least page 9, line 38). Joo teaches a porous metal (see ay least [0020]). Koichi and Joo are analogous art in the field of porous metal art; therefore, Koichi and Joo can be properly combined.
For the above reasons claims 1-11 stand rejected and claims 13-16 are included in the rejections.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
August 24, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights