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 .
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.
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.
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, 2, 5-7, 10, 11, 23, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (2020/0258652) in view of Cola et al. (2017/0190579).
Yamazaki et al. discloses a transmission cable comprising a plurality of conductors (11) (re-claims 1 and 27), wherein the plurality of conductors is stranded (re-claims 2 and 28).
Yamazaki et al. does not disclose each conductor comprising a non-porous metal-matrix composite (MMC) which consists essentially of a plurality of carbon nanotubes that are evenly dispersed in an aluminum matrix, having a variation in concentration that does not exceed 20% such that the concentration of the carbon nanotubes is uniform throughout an entirety of the stranded MMC (re-claims 1-2 and 27-28).
Cola et al. discloses non-porous MMC conductors (wires, [0002]), wherein each MMC consists essentially of a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) that are evenly dispersed in an aluminum metal matrix such that the concentration of the carbon nanotubes does not exceed 20% or 10% and the concentration of the carbon nanotubes is uniform throughout an entirety of the conductor, wherein the MMC conductor is formed from an input material that includes only aluminum and CNT and insignificant amounts of impurities. Specifically, Cola et al. does not disclose the MMC being porous; in paragraph [0130], Cola et al. discloses the MMC formed by placing the CNT into a suitable mold which is then heated by itself or concurrently with another pure metal at a temperature above the melting temperature of the metal in order to form or cast a composite in the form of the mold, only CNT and aluminum metal matrix and insignificant amounts of impurities (it is known in the art that aluminum would have insignificant amounts of impurities therein); in paragraph [0081], Cola et al. discloses that the nanocarbon structures dispersed within the metal matrix are substantially unbundled structures showing some degree of bundling, typically less than 1% (re-claims 1-2, 23, and 27-28). Cola et al. also discloses the MMC conductor comprising carbon nanotubes in a range of 0.1 wt% to 2.0 wt% ([0082]) (re-claims 5-7). Re-claims 10 and 11, since the MMC of Cola et al. consists essentially of the material as claimed; the MMC has a conductivity of at least 55% IACS or about 58% IACS and less than the conductivity of a pure aluminum metal.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the MMC as taught by Cola et al. for each stranded conductor of Yamazaki et al. since the MMC taught by Cola et al. has excellent in both electrical and mechanical properties.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 23, 25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama et al. (2012/0267141) in view of Cola et al.
Kamiyama et al. (Fig. 1c) discloses a transmission cable comprising a plurality of conductors (1, 65) (re-claims 1, 12, and 27), wherein the plurality of conductors is stranded (re-claims 2 and 28). Kamiyama et al. also discloses the plurality of conductors comprising a plurality of stranded core wires (65) surrounded by the plurality of MMC conductors (1, [0089]), wherein any of stranded core wires (65, steel) has a greater tensile strength and a lower conductivity compared to any of MMC conductors (re-claims 3-4, 8, 12, and 29-30).
Kamiyama et al. does not disclose each conductor comprising a non-porous metal-matrix composite (MMC) which consists essentially of a plurality of carbon nanotubes that are evenly dispersed in an aluminum matrix, having a variation in concentration that does not exceed 20% such that the concentration of the carbon nanotubes is uniform throughout an entirety of the stranded MMC (re-claims 1-2, 12, 23, 25 and 27-28).
Cola et al. discloses non-porous MMC conductors (wires, [0002]), wherein each MMC consists essentially of a plurality of carbon nanotubes that are evenly dispersed in an aluminum matrix such that the concentration of the carbon nanotubes does not exceed 20% or 10% and the concentration of the carbon nanotubes is uniform throughout an entirety of the conductor. Specifically, Cola et al. does not disclose the MMC being porous; in paragraph [0130], Cola et al. discloses the MMC formed by placing the CNT into a suitable mold which is then heated by itself or concurrently with another pure metal at a temperature above the melting temperature of the metal in order to form or cast a composite in the form of the mold, only CNT and aluminum metal matrix and insignificant amounts of impurities (it is known in the art that aluminum would have insignificant amounts of impurities therein); in paragraph [0081], Cola et al. discloses that the nanocarbon structures dispersed within the metal matrix are substantially unbundled structures showing some degree of bundling, typically less than 1% (re-claims 1-2, 23, and 27-28). Cola et al. also discloses the MMC conductor comprising carbon nanotubes in a range of 0.1 wt% to 2.0 wt% ([0082]) (re-claims 5-7, 13-17, and 27). Re-claims 10 and 11, since the MMC of Cola et al. consists essentially of the material as claimed; the MMC has a conductivity of at least 55% IACS or about 58% IACS and less than the conductivity of a pure aluminum metal.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the MMC as taught by Cola et al. for each stranded conductor of Kamiyama et al. since the MMC taught by Cola et al. has excellent in both electrical and mechanical properties.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCullough et al. (2012/0305312) in view of Cola et al.
McCullough et al. discloses a transmission cable comprising a plurality of conductors and a plurality of core wires ([0004], a stranded wire core comprising metal wires, such as steel, surrounded by a wire conductor layer, such as aluminum), wherein any of the core wires have a greater tensile strength compared to any of the conductors, and wherein each core wire comprises steel or comprises a composite material including a carbon-glass-fiber composite or an aluminum matrix composite ([0016]) (re-claims 1, 4, and 8-9).
McCullough et al. does not disclose each conductor (in the wire conductor layer) comprising an MMC conductor which consists essentially of a plurality of carbon nanotubes that are evenly dispersed in an aluminum matrix, having a variation in concentration that does not exceed 20% (re-claim 1).
Cola et al. discloses non-porous MMC conductors (wires, [0002]), wherein each MMC consists essentially of a plurality of carbon nanotubes that are evenly dispersed in an aluminum matrix such that the concentration of the carbon nanotubes does not exceed 20% and the concentration of the carbon nanotubes is uniform throughout an entirety of the conductor. Specifically, Cola et al. does not disclose the MMC being porous; in paragraph [0130], Cola et al. discloses the MMC formed by placing the CNT into a suitable mold which is then heated by itself or concurrently with another pure metal at a temperature above the melting temperature of the metal in order to form or cast a composite in the form of the mold, only CNT and aluminum metal matrix and insignificant amounts of impurities (it is known in the art that aluminum would have insignificant amounts of impurities therein); in paragraph [0081], Cola et al. discloses that the nanocarbon structures dispersed within the metal matrix are substantially unbundled structures showing some degree of bundling, typically less than 1% (re-claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the MMC as taught by Cola et al. for each conductor (in the wire conductor layer) of McCullough et al. since the MMC taught by Cola et al. has excellent in both electrical and mechanical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 27 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant points to paragraphs [0002], [0081], and [0130) in Cola to state that Cola does not teach or suggest “the MMC conductor is formed from an input material that includes only Al, CNT, and insignificant amounts of impurities” as now cited in claim 1. Applicant argues that Cola describes CNTs which include conformal coatings and/or chemical treatments of the CNTs. These additions are part of Cola’s input material and are inconsistent with “only Al, CNT, and insignificant amounts of impurities” as required by amended claim 1.
Examiner would disagree. As mentioned in the examiner’s answer to appeal brief that Cola, in [0108], discloses that in “certain other non-limiting embodiments,…the CNTs without the further deposition of any conformal coating(s).” Applicant, again, has not provided evidence to support the position of functional groups being included in CNTs after the surface treatments. Cola, [0060], discloses that “substrate or support, and conditions under which…CNT are formed, can be selected such that the support resists reacting with the catalyst, process gases.”
Applicant points to [0018] and [0130] to argue that the “substrate or support” on which Cola’s CNT array is formed, is itself an additional input material. Thus, Cola teaches the opposite of “only Al, CNT, and insignificant amounts of impurities” as claimed in claim 1.
Examiner would disagree. Cola, [0027], discloses that “the substrate is formed of material which is resistant to high temperatures and can be recovered after addition to the melt and reused.” Cola, [0018], discloses that “vertically aligned carbon nanotube arrays, which are supported on…the surface of support or substrate…the substrate or support is a metallic foil…aluminum foil.” Cola, [0084], discloses that “the metal support or substrate on which the CNT array was formed is the same metal as that forming the metal matrix of the composite.” Cola, [0124], discloses that “the metal forming the melt can be…aluminum.” Accordingly, the input material of Cola includes only Al, CNT, and insignificant amounts of impurities, and the MMC conductor of Cola consists essentially CNTs and aluminum.
Regarding the Kamiyama, Yamazaki, and McCullough references, applicant argues that they all do not teach or suggest “the MMC conductor is formed from an input material that includes only Al, CNT, and insignificant amounts of impurities” as claimed in claim 1.
Examiner would disagree because the features of “the MMC conductor is formed from an input material that includes only Al, CNT, and insignificant amounts of impurities” are taught by Cola, and this is a 103 rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights