The present disclosure relates to a porous metal for use as an orthopaedic implant. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to a micro-alloyed porous metal having an optimized chemical composition to achieve targeted mechanical properties for use as an orthopaedic implant, and to a method for manufacturing the same.
Orthopaedic implants may be constructed of porous metal to encourage bone growth into the orthopaedic implant. An example of such a material is produced using Trabecular Metal™ technology generally available from Zimmer, Inc., of Warsaw, Ind. Trabecular Metal™ is a trademark of Zimmer, Inc. Such a material may be formed from a reticulated vitreous carbon (RVC) foam substrate which is infiltrated and coated with a biocompatible metal in the manner disclosed in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 5,282,861 to Kaplan, the entire disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference. The resulting infiltrated and coated material is lightweight, strong, and has open cells that are similar to the structure of natural cancellous bone, thereby providing a matrix into which cancellous bone may grow to fix the orthopaedic implant to the patient's bone. The coated metal layer of the material may contain up to 2,000 ppm oxygen, up to 2,000 ppm nitrogen, and up to 500 ppm hydrogen. However, to achieve desired mechanical properties with this coated metal layer, the material is densified to a relative density of 18% or more, such as from 18% to 25%.
The present disclosure relates to a micro-alloyed porous metal having an optimized chemical composition to achieve targeted mechanical properties for use as an orthopaedic implant and a cell/soft tissue receptor, and to a method for manufacturing the same. The porous metal may achieve a targeted compressive strength (e.g., 24,000 psi or more) and a targeted ductility (e.g., 50% or more), for example. These targeted mechanical properties may allow the porous metal to be densified to a lower relative density than is currently manufactured commercially. For example, the porous metal may be densified to a relative density less than 18%.
According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a highly porous biomaterial is provided that is configured to be implanted in a patient's body. The highly porous biomaterial includes a porous substrate having a plurality of ligaments that define pores of the porous substrate and a biocompatible metal coating applied to the plurality of ligaments of the porous substrate, the highly porous biomaterial having a relative density less than 18%, the relative density being a percentage obtained by dividing an actual density of the highly porous biomaterial by a theoretical density of the biocompatible metal of the coating.
According to another embodiment of the present disclosure, a method is provided for manufacturing a highly porous biomaterial. The method includes the steps of: providing a porous substrate having a plurality of ligaments that define pores of the porous substrate; depositing a biocompatible metal coating onto the plurality of ligaments of the porous substrate; and setting at least one of a maximum oxygen concentration in the metal coating at 1,212 ppm, and a maximum nitrogen concentration in the metal coating at 1,243 ppm.
According to yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, a method is provided for manufacturing a highly porous biomaterial. The method includes the steps of: providing a porous substrate having a plurality of ligaments that define pores of the porous substrate; depositing a biocompatible metal coating onto the plurality of ligaments of the porous substrate; and setting a minimum nitrogen concentration in the metal coating at 488 ppm.
According to yet another embodiment of the present disclosure, a method is provided for manufacturing a highly porous biomaterial. The method includes the steps of: providing a porous substrate having a plurality of ligaments that define pores of the porous substrate; and depositing a biocompatible metal coating onto the plurality of ligaments of the porous substrate to a completed extent, the highly porous biomaterial having a relative density less than 18% at the completed extent, the relative density being a percentage obtained by dividing an actual density of the highly porous biomaterial by a theoretical density of the biocompatible metal of the coating.
The above-mentioned and other features and advantages of this disclosure, and the manner of attaining them, will become more apparent and the invention itself will be better understood by reference to the following description of embodiments of the invention taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Corresponding reference characters indicate corresponding parts throughout the several views. The exemplifications set out herein illustrate exemplary embodiments of the invention and such exemplifications are not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention in any manner.
Beginning at step 102 of method 100 (
Continuing to step 104 of method 100 (
In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, tantalum or an alloy thereof is used to coat the porous substrate during the coating step 104 of method 100 (
Also in an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process is performed to coat the porous substrate during the coating step 104 of method 100 (
With reference to
In operation, Cl2 gas is injected via input 310 and H2 gas is injected via input 312 into reaction chamber 304, which may be held under vacuum at a pressure of 1.0 to 2.0 Torr. Once inside the heated chlorination chamber 320, which may be resistance-heated to a temperature of approximately 500° C., the Cl2 gas reacts with tantalum 330 to form tantalum chloride gas, such as TaCl5 gas. The TaCl5 gas then mixes with the injected H2 gas and travels into the heated deposition chamber 322, which may be induction-heated to a temperature of approximately 900° C.-1,100° C., and more specifically to a temperature of approximately 900° C.-970° C. Once inside the heated deposition chamber 322, the TaCl5 and H2 gases flow around and into the porous substrate 332. Then, upon contact with the heated surfaces of porous substrate 332, the TaCl5 and H2 gases react to deposit tantalum metal and to liberate hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas. As shown in
To promote even metal deposition and infiltration, the porous substrate 332 may be flipped and/or rotated in apparatus 300 during the CVD process or between individual cycles of the CVD process. Also, porous substrate 332 may be moved to different locations in apparatus 300, especially when multiple porous substrates 332 are coated simultaneously in apparatus 300. For example, when apparatus 300 contains a stack of porous substrates 332, a certain substrate may be located on top of the stack during a first CVD cycle and then may be moved to the bottom of the stack during a second CVD cycle.
Returning to
The highly porous structure may be made in a variety of densities in order to selectively tailor orthopaedic implant 200 for particular applications. In particular, as discussed in the above-incorporated U.S. Pat. No. 5,282,861 to Kaplan, the highly porous structure may be fabricated to virtually any desired porosity and pore size, and can thus be matched with the surrounding natural bone in order to provide an optimized matrix for bone ingrowth and mineralization.
To achieve targeted mechanical properties, specifically a targeted compressive strength and a targeted ductility, the deposited metal film 208 on orthopaedic implant 200 may be micro-alloyed with controlled amounts of certain interstitial elements. In certain embodiments, the deposited metal film 208 on orthopaedic implant 200 may be micro-alloyed with controlled amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, and/or hydrogen. Such micro-alloying may occur during the above-described CVD process by controlling the relative amounts of Cl2 gas delivered via input 310, H2 gas delivered via input 312, and air delivered via input 314 (
According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the deposited metal film 208 on orthopaedic implant 200 is micro-alloyed according to Table 2 below. In this embodiment, the minimum nitrogen concentration of 488 ppm may ensure that orthopaedic implant 200 has sufficient compressive strength, while the maximum oxygen concentration of 1,212 ppm may ensure that orthopaedic implant 200 has sufficient ductility. The balance may include primarily tantalum and other elements such as iron, tungsten, molybdenum, silicon, and nickel, for example.
According to another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the deposited metal film 208 of orthopaedic implant 200 is micro-alloyed according to Table 3 below. In this embodiment, the minimum nitrogen concentration of 488 ppm may ensure that orthopaedic implant 200 has sufficient compressive strength, while the maximum nitrogen concentration of 1,243 ppm may ensure that orthopaedic implant 200 has sufficient ductility. The balance may include primarily tantalum and other elements such as iron, tungsten, molybdenum, silicon, and nickel, for example.
In practice, limiting the oxygen concentration to 1,212 ppm (Table 2) may be more reasonable than limiting the nitrogen concentration to 1,243 ppm (Table 3). With reference to
The concentration of oxygen in the deposited metal film 208 may be as low as 0 ppm (Table 2 and Table 3). Therefore, as indicated in Table 1 above, it is within the scope of the present disclosure that the air delivered via input 314 (
The chemical composition of orthopaedic implant 200 may be analyzed using a suitable chemical determinator to ensure compliance with Table 2 or Table 3. An exemplary chemical determinator is the TCH600 Series Nitrogen/Oxygen/Hydrogen Determinator, which is commercially available from LECO Corportation of St. Joseph, Mich. The chemical determinator may operate based on fusion in an inert, high-temperature environment and may include infrared (IR) and thermal conductivity (TC) detectors to detect nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen in the material.
Micro-alloying the deposited metal film 208 on orthopaedic implant 200 may ensure that orthopaedic implant 200 has a specific compressive strength (SCS) of at least 24,000 psi, for example. In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, SCS is determined by subjecting orthopaedic implant 200 to an increasing compressive strain. The applied compressive strain may be increased incrementally until, at a maximum compressive load, 0.04″ of total displacement occurs or compressive failure occurs, for example. SCS may be calculated by dividing the ultimate compressive strength (UCS) of the material by the relative density (% RD) of the material, where the UCS equals the maximum compressive load divided by the cross-sectional area of the material. For example, a material having a relative density of 16% RD and a cross-sectional area of 0.13 square inches that withstands a maximum compressive load of 1,300 lbf would have a calculated SCS of 62,500 psi. SCS may be determined using a suitable mechanical testing apparatus, such as the Instron 5567 Universal Testing Instrument, which is commercially available from Instron of Norwood, Mass.
Also, micro-alloying the deposited metal film 208 on orthopaedic implant 200 may ensure that orthopaedic implant 200 has a ductility of at least 50%, for example. In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, ductility is determined by subjecting orthopaedic implant 200 to an increasing compressive strain and measuring the percent reduction in compressive load. If the compressive load decreases by more than 50% of its maximum value, the material may be deemed too brittle. The ductility of the material may be determined using a suitable mechanical testing apparatus, such as the above-described Instron 5567 Universal Testing Instrument.
By micro-alloying orthopaedic implant 200 and achieving certain targeted mechanical properties, the material may be densified to a relative density less than 18% RD. For example, the material may be densified to a relative density as low as 12% RD, 13% RD, or 14% RD and as high as 15% RD, 16% RD, or 17% RD, or within any range delimited by any pair of the forgoing values. For purposes of the present disclosure, the relative density of a given piece of material is calculated by dividing the actual density of the piece of material by the theoretical density of the deposited metal and multiplying by 100 to express the ratio as a percentage. When the deposited metal is tantalum having a theoretical density of 16.6 g/cm3, the piece of material may have an actual density less than 2.9 g/cm3 or less than 3.0 g/cm3 (to arrive at less than 18% RD). For example, the piece of material may have an actual density as low as 2.0 g/cm3 (to arrive at 12% RD), 2.2 g/cm3 (to arrive at 13% RD), or 2.3 g/cm3 (to arrive at 14% RD) and as high as 2.5 g/cm3 (to arrive at 15% RD), 2.7 g/cm3 (to arrive at 16% RD), or 2.8 g/cm3 (to arrive at 17% RD). Although the underlying porous substrate and interstitial elements would contribute to the weight of the material, those contributions are insignificant and may be ignored such that the material is assumed to be entirely metal when calculating the relative density.
The ability to reduce the relative density of the material may decrease the time required to manufacture the material. If the material is required to have a relative density of 18% RD, for example, the CVD process would continue until the material reaches a relatively high target weight. In certain embodiments, 8 cycles, 10 cycles, or 12 cycles of the CVD process may be required, with each individual cycle lasting more than 10 hours. However, if the material is able to have a relative density of 12% RD, for example, the CVD process may terminate when the material reaches a relatively low target weight. In certain embodiments, the CVD process may be shortened by 10 hours, 20 hours, 30 hours, or more. Such time savings may be recognized while still achieving certain targeted mechanical properties.
Additionally, the ability to reduce the relative density of the material may decrease the inputs and ingredients required to manufacture the material. If the material is required to have a relative density of 18% RD, for example, a relatively large amount of tantalum metal would be required to produce a relatively thick coating on the porous substrate. However, if the material is able to have a relative density of 12% RD, for example, less tantalum metal would be required to produce a relatively thin coating on the porous substrate. Such material savings may be recognized while still achieving certain targeted mechanical properties.
At this stage, because the material is expected to achieve targeted mechanical properties for implantation, the material is considered to be densified to a “completed extent.” As used herein, the “completed extent” of densification means that the material need not be further densified or coated before implantation. The material may remain permanently at the “completed extent” of densification, not just temporarily between coating cycles, for example. In this respect, the “completed extent” of densification is not an intermediate extent of densification between coating cycles. Also, the material may be provided to another party or otherwise prepared for implantation in the “completed extent” without requiring additional coating cycles.
After the material is densified to the “completed extent” during the coating step 104 of method 100 (
Finally, in step 106 of method 100 (
The following examples illustrate the impact of micro-alloying a highly porous tantalum structure.
A first experiment was designed and performed to evaluate the SCS of a highly porous tantalum structure based on two factors: (1) the ratio of atmospheric air flow rate to chlorine flow rate introduced to the CVD process, and (2) the final relative density.
The test samples were RVC cylinders having nominal dimensions of 0.400″ in length and 0.400″ in diameter. When coating the samples, the air/chlorine ratio was varied between 0.00 and 0.10, and the final relative density of the samples was varied between about 18% RD and about 22% RD. Other CVD process parameters remained constant throughout the experiment, as set forth in Table 4 below.
Each test sample was removed from the CVD apparatus after reaching a target weight (about 2.4-3.2 grams) corresponding to its specified relative density. Due to the nature of the CVD process, variations of ±1% RD, and in certain cases±1.5% RD, from the specified relative densities were deemed acceptable.
The samples were subjected to mechanical testing to measure SCS (psi) and were subjected to chemical testing to measure the nitrogen concentration (ppm) and the oxygen concentration (ppm) in the samples. Such testing methods are described further above.
Because SCS is effectively normalized for relative density, by definition, relative density did not have a statistically significant effect on SCS. A reduced statistical model was created by removing the relative density factor, as well as the interaction between the air/chlorine ratio factor and the relative density factor.
Analysis of the reduced model indicated with high probability (p=0.003) that the air/chlorine ratio accounts for 98.5% of the variation in average SCS. Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.8997), exponential relationship between SCS and the air/chlorine ratio:
SCS (psi)=18,392e^[12.41(Air Flow Rate (sccm)/Chlorine Flow Rate (sccm))] Equation 1
According to Equation 1 above, strength may be improved by increasing the air/chlorine ratio during the CVD process. However, increasing the air/chlorine ratio too much could lead to brittle failure. Although none of the samples in the present study exhibited brittle failure during compressive testing, one sample that was manufactured at the highest air/chlorine ratio (0.10) exhibited material separation when subjected to repeated compressive tests, which may indicate the onset of brittle failure.
Analysis of the reduced model indicated with high probability (p=0.002) that the air/chlorine ratio accounts for 98.1% of the variation in the average nitrogen concentration. Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.9738), exponential relationship between the air/chlorine ratio and the average nitrogen concentration:
Nitrogen Concentration (ppm)=209.88e^[21.748(Air Flow Rate (sccm)/Chlorine Flow Rate (sccm))] Equation 2
The data indicated that the average oxygen concentration is independent of relative density, but the average oxygen concentration reached a maximum at the center point for relative density (20% RD). Similarly, the data also indicated that the average oxygen concentration is independent of the air/chlorine ratio, but the average oxygen concentration reached a maximum at the center point for the air/chlorine ratio (0.05).
Neither the air/chlorine ratio, the relative density, nor the interaction between the air/chlorine ratio and the relative density had a statistically significant effect on the standard deviation of the oxygen concentration. Regression analysis of the data indicated no significant statistical relationship (R2=0.0012) between the air/chlorine ratio and the average oxygen concentration.
N2 and O2 gases are both introduced proportionally into the CVD reaction chamber in the incoming atmospheric air stream, so the present inventors originally anticipated that the relationship between the air/chlorine ratio and the average oxygen concentration in the samples would be similar to the relationship between the air/chlorine ratio and the average nitrogen concentration in the samples (Equation 2). The present inventors now believe, however, that a significant portion of the introduced O2 gas reacts with other process gases in the chamber, rather than depositing onto the porous substrate. For example, the introduced O2 gas may react with the introduced H2 gas to form water (H2O) vapor.
Given the high correlation between the air/chlorine ratio and SCS (Equation 1) and the high correlation between the air/chlorine ratio and the average nitrogen concentration (Equation 2), the inventors anticipated a high correlation between SCS and the average nitrogen concentration. Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.9697), linear relationship between SCS and the average nitrogen concentration:
SCS (psi)=10,309+33.681*(Nitrogen Concentration (ppm)) Equation 3
According to Equation 3 above, micro-alloying a highly porous tantalum material with nitrogen is a potential mechanism for increasing SCS.
Although regression analysis indicated a high correlation between SCS and the average nitrogen concentration (Equation 3), regression analysis did not indicate a statistically significant correlation (R2=0.0469) between SCS and the average oxygen concentration.
A second experiment was designed and performed to evaluate the SCS and the ductility of a highly porous tantalum structure based on the concentration of nitrogen and oxygen in the structure.
The test samples were RVC cylinders having nominal dimensions of 0.400″ in length and 0.400″ in diameter. A two-step CVD process was performed according to Table 5 below to produce coated samples having nitrogen concentrations between about 350 ppm and about 1,200 ppm, oxygen concentrations between about 300 ppm and about 1,200 ppm, and relative densities between about 12% RD and about 18% RD.
The samples were subjected to mechanical testing to measure SCS (psi) and ductility (%) and were subjected to chemical testing to measure the nitrogen concentration (ppm), the oxygen concentration (ppm), and the hydrogen concentration (ppm) in the samples. Such testing methods are described further above.
Analysis of the data indicated no statistically signification correlation (p=0.298, a=0.05) between nitrogen and oxygen concentrations in the samples. Thus, the effects of nitrogen and oxygen concentrations may be evaluated separately.
Analysis of the data indicated no statistically signification correlation between relative density and the nitrogen concentrations in the samples (p=0.186, a=0.05) or between relative density and the oxygen concentrations in the samples (p=0.303, a=0.05). Thus, relative density may be discounted when analyzing the effects of nitrogen and oxygen concentrations.
Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.861), linear relationship between SCS and the average nitrogen and oxygen concentrations:
SCS (psi)=11,361+38.3*(Nitrogen Concentration (ppm))+11.2*(Oxygen Concentration (ppm)) Equation 4
The entire Equation 4 was found to be statistically significant (p=0.000, a=0.05). Also, each individual term within Equation 4—the constant term (p=0.001, a=0.05), the nitrogen concentration term (p=0.000, a=0.05), and the oxygen concentration term (p=0.012, a=0.05)—was found to be statistically significant.
According to Equation 4, increasing the concentration of nitrogen and/or oxygen increases SCS because both signs are positive. Also, the nitrogen concentration has a larger effect on SCS than the oxygen concentration because the nitrogen concentration term is larger in magnitude than the oxygen concentration term. A certain minimum nitrogen concentration or a certain minimum oxygen concentration may ensure SCS above the specified minimum of 24,000 psi, for example.
Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.147), linear relationship between SCS and the average oxygen concentration alone:
SCS (psi)=33,973+21.27*(Oxygen Concentration (ppm)) Equation 5
Also, regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.832), linear relationship between SCS and the average nitrogen concentration alone:
SCS (psi)=16,308+40.17*(Nitrogen Concentration (ppm)) Equation 6
Equations 5 and 6 are plotted in
With respect to
With respect to
Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.505), linear relationship between ductility and the average nitrogen and oxygen concentrations:
Ductility (%)=1.09−0.000203*(Nitrogen Concentration (ppm))−0.000150*(Oxygen Concentration ppm)) Equation 7
The entire Equation 7 was found to be statistically significant (p=0.000, a=0.05). Also, each individual term within Equation 7—the constant term (p=0.000, a=0.05), the nitrogen concentration term (p=0.000, a=0.05), and the oxygen concentration term (p=0.022, a=0.05)—was found to be statistically significant.
According to Equation 7, increasing the concentration of nitrogen and/or oxygen decreases ductility because both signs are negative. A certain maximum nitrogen concentration or a certain maximum oxygen concentration may ensure ductility above the specified minimum of 50%, for example.
Regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.217), linear relationship between ductility and the average oxygen concentration alone:
Ductility (%)=0.9721−0.000204*(Oxygen Concentration (ppm)) Equation 8
Also, regression analysis of the data resulted in the following best-fit (R2=0.430), linear relationship between ductility and the average nitrogen concentration alone:
Ductility (%)=1.026−0.000228*(Nitrogen Concentration (ppm)) Equation 9
Equations 8 and 9 are plotted in
With respect to
With respect to
While this invention has been described as having exemplary designs, the present invention can be further modified within the spirit and scope of this disclosure. This application is therefore intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of the invention using its general principles. Further, this application is intended to cover such departures from the present disclosure as come within known or customary practice in the art to which this invention pertains and which fall within the limits of the appended claims.
This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/523,187, filed on Jun. 14, 2012, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/497,780, filed Jun. 16, 2011, the disclosures of which are hereby expressly incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4138512 | Glaski | Feb 1979 | A |
RE30626 | Kaplan et al. | May 1981 | E |
4699082 | Hakim | Oct 1987 | A |
4821674 | Deboer et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4996942 | Deboer et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5102694 | Taylor et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5154970 | Kaplan et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5169685 | Woodruff et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5198034 | Deboer et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5282861 | Kaplan | Feb 1994 | A |
5283109 | Kaplan et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5306666 | Izumi | Apr 1994 | A |
5374315 | Deboer et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5427620 | Deboer et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5427631 | Johansson et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5443515 | Cohen et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5443647 | Aucoin et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5574247 | Nishitani et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5577263 | West | Nov 1996 | A |
5755809 | Cohen et al. | May 1998 | A |
5780157 | Tuffias et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5840366 | Mizuno et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5874131 | Vaartstra et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5876793 | Sherman et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5902407 | Deboer et al. | May 1999 | A |
5919531 | Arkles et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
6063442 | Cohen et al. | May 2000 | A |
6352594 | Cook et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6641918 | Sherman et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6770146 | Koren et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6797340 | Fang et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6833161 | Wang et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6878395 | Kaeppeler | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6949273 | Sharan | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7368018 | Yamaguchi | May 2008 | B2 |
7374941 | Bondestam et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7479301 | Eriksen | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7485340 | Elers et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7601393 | Chiang et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
8734514 | Vargas et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
20020162500 | Hong et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020197403 | Arkles et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20050011457 | Chiang et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20060110534 | Hwang et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20080096369 | Strzyzewski et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080296660 | Park et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080317954 | Lu et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090107404 | Ogliari et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090205563 | Arena et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090214786 | Chang et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090232983 | Ammerlaan et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090288604 | Kim et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100075419 | Inagaki et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100080935 | Brice | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20120323323 | Vargas et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130096667 | Bregulla et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1927325 | Jun 2008 | EP |
WO-9956800 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO-2012174211 | Dec 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/523,187, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 5, 2013”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/523,187, Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 7, 2014”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/523,187, Response filed Jan. 24, 2014 to Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 5, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/523,187, Response to Restriction Requirement mailed Sep. 24, 2013”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/523,187, Restriction Requirement mailed Sep. 24, 2013”, 7 pgs. |
“Boron Nitride (BN) Supplier Data by Goodfellow”, Azom.com, [Online]. Retrieved from Internet: <http://www.azom.com/Details.asp?ArticlelD=2253>, (Jan. 27, 2010), 2 pgs. |
“Goodfellow Press”, Reticulated Foams, (Sep. 2008), 1 pg. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2012/042410, International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed Jan. 3, 2014”, 9 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2012/042410, International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Aug. 6, 2012”, 14 pgs. |
“Medical implant e.g. orthopedic implant, for e.g. him replacement, has porous or non-porous metal part comprising layer of tantalum coated by physical vapor deposition and chemical vapor deposition”, Research Disclosure: 2007RD-521048, (2009), 2 pgs. |
“Tantaline Technologies”, Engineered Tantalum Products, [Online]. Retrieved from Internet: <http://www.tantalum-coating.com/ProdEng.htm>, (Jan. 26, 2010), 3 pgs. |
“TCH600 Nitrogen/Oxygen/Hydrogen Series”, LECO Corporation, (2010), 4 pgs. |
Everitt, Paul, “True to Foam”, Reticulated ceramic foam provides a verstile material form that can be engineered and tailored for specific applications., [Online]. Retrieved from Internet: <www.ceramicindustry.com>, (Jan. 2008), pp. 10-11. |
Leiby, Mark, “Chemical Vapor Deposition by Pulsed Ultrasonic Direct Injection of Liquid Precursors Produces Versatile Method for Creation of thin Film Circuits and Devices”, Materials Research Society, vol. 698, [Online]. Retrieved from Internet: <http://www.mrs.org/s—mrs/sec—subscribe.asp?Cid=2505&Did=135969&action=detail>, (2001), 1 pg. |
Levine, Brett R, et al., “Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery”, Biomaterials, (27), (Sep. 2006), 4671-81. |
Nebosky, et al., “Formability of Porous Tantalum Sheet-Metal”, Materials Science and Engineering 4, (2009), 3 pgs. |
Zardiackas, Lyle D, et al., “Structure, metallurgy, and mechanical properties of porous tantalum foam”, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, vol. 58, No. 2, (Feb. 1, 2001), 180-187. |
“Canadian Application Serial No. 2,839,407, Office Action mailed Feb. 13, 2015”, 6 pgs. |
“Canadian Application Serial No. 2,839,407, Office Action mailed Aug. 27, 2015”, 4 pgs. |
“Canadian Application Serial No. 2,839,407, Response filed Feb. 29, 2016 to Office Action mailed Aug. 27, 2015”, 6 pgs. |
“Canadian Application Serial No. 2,839,407, Response filed Aug. 13, 2015 to Office Action mailed Feb. 13, 2015”, 13 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 12731808.7, Examination Notification Art. 94(3) mailed Apr. 13, 2015”, 6 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140227427 A1 | Aug 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61497780 | Jun 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13523187 | Jun 2012 | US |
Child | 14253473 | US |