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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Both of these claims exemplify that the first and second substrates can be a set of different metals, but the amendments made to claims 1 and 10 upon which they are dependent upon force the substrate to be aluminum with an aluminum oxide layer on opposing surfaces, in this case, the introduction of copper and other metals widens the limitation of their respective independent claims and is improper. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga (US 20190109356 A1) in view of Kawai (US 20170352866 A1) and further in view of Huang et al. “Preparation and characterization of the graphene-Cu composite film by electrodeposition process” in: Microelectronic Engineering volume 157 pages 7-12 (may 2016) as evidenced by Sato (US 2011/0151331 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaga teaches a battery module for a battery pack in a battery electric vehicle (0014, battery pack with a case), the battery module comprising:
a plurality of battery cells for electric energy, the plurality of battery cells having a first end and a second end, each battery cell comprising a negative portion extending to a positive portion, each negative portion having a conductive negative terminal and each positive portion having a conductive positive terminal opposite the negative terminal for electric current flow therethrough; at least one cell holder in which the plurality of battery cells is disposed and a first and second current collector on each end (Fig. 2, 0015; battery cell, 2, has 2 ends with a negative and positive end opposite each other and the cell ends meet their respective current collectors via a hole in the insulating plate which can be described as a holder). Kaga further teaches that both positive and negative current collector substrates can be metals such as copper or aluminum meaning that they can be the same (0033, 0034).
It is well-known in the art that aluminum current collectors face reduced conductivity due to the oxide layer common to aluminum, and the art has provided several ways to address this phenomenon in order to utilize aluminum as a current collector as discussed in Sato (Pub No 2011/0151331, see background). As Kaga does not address the particular manner in which the oxide layer on aluminum is addressed, one of ordinary skill would reasonably look to related art to ensure that the current collector does not suffer from reduced conductivity due to the aluminum oxide layer that inevitably forms.
Kaga does not disclose the first and second current collectors having a Cu-Gr multilayer on each side, nor does it teach an aluminum oxide layer supporting the Cu-Gr multilayer. In a similar field of endeavor, Kawai teaches a solution and motivation for the presence of the aluminum oxide layer on an aluminum current collector. Kawai teaches an aluminum oxide layer on both sides of both a positive and negative current collector which improves adhesion between a substrate and a conductive layer (0075, negative current collector, 0082, positive current collector, 0014, improved adhesion between current collector and a conductive layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the improved method of Kawai to provide a conductive aluminum current collector with improved adhesion due to the oxide layer as both Kaga and Kawai teach using aluminum current collectors presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so applies a known technique of dealing with the aluminum oxide layer to a known device ready for improvement yielding predictable results of improved adhesion.
Kaga in view of Kawai does not disclose specifically a Cu-Gr multilayer as the conductive layer present. Kawai teaches that the conductive material can be graphite, soft carbon, or other carbon materials and can be combined with a conductive auxiliary agent which can be a conductive metal (Kawai, 0119, 0121). Huang teaches a Cu-Gr conductive composite to be used for its mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties (Huang, introduction paragraph 1). Huang exemplifies that adding layers of graphene to Cu results in improved mechanical properties as opposed to pure Cu film (PDF page 5, left side paragraph 2). Huang does not specify how the composite should be used or the substrate upon which it should be attached and the experiment just discloses the evaluated mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to take the newly modified battery module of Kaga in view of Kawai and replace the graphite and metal conductive layer with the Cu-Gr multilayer of Huang as doing so provides generally better mechanical properties in the form of a higher Young’s modulus without greatly affecting the electrical performance, Huang also teaches that graphene has generally better performance when mixed with copper than graphite does. (Huang, introduction, page 4 3.3 electrical resistivity, and page 5 left side paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above which has aluminum as the current collector substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above, Kaga further teaches that the cells are interconnected in series (0038). This meets the requirement of the claim and would be obvious for one of ordinary skill to include as it is a part of the battery pack of Kaga as described regarding claim 1.
Claim(s) 10, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga in view of Huang and Kawai as evidenced by Sato and further in view of Kouvo et al. (US 20220219546 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kaga teaches a plurality of battery cells for electric energy, the plurality of battery cells having a first end and a second end, each battery cell comprising a negative portion extending to a positive portion, each negative portion having a conductive negative terminal and each positive portion having a conductive positive terminal opposite the negative terminal for electric current flow therethrough; at least one cell holder in which the plurality of battery cells is disposed and a first and second current collector on each end (Fig. 2, 0015; battery cell, 2, has 2 ends with a negative and positive end opposite each other and the cell ends meet their respective current collectors via a hole in the insulating plate which can be described as a holder). Kaga further teaches that both positive and negative current collector substrates can be metals such as copper or aluminum meaning that they can be the same (0033, 0034).
It is well-known in the art that aluminum current collectors face reduced conductivity due to the oxide layer common to aluminum, and the art has provided several ways to address this phenomenon in order to utilize aluminum as a current collector as discussed in Sato (Pub No 2011/0151331, see background). As Kaga does not address the particular manner in which the oxide layer on aluminum is addressed, one of ordinary skill would reasonably look to related art to ensure that the current collector does not suffer from reduced conductivity due to the aluminum oxide layer that inevitably forms.
Kaga does not disclose the first and second current collectors having a Cu-Gr multilayer on each side, nor does it teach an aluminum oxide layer supporting the Cu-Gr multilayer. In a similar field of endeavor, Kawai teaches a solution and motivation for the presence of the aluminum oxide layer on an aluminum current collector. Kawai teaches an aluminum oxide layer on both sides of a both a positive and negative current collector which improves adhesion (0075, negative current collector, 0082, positive current collector, 0014, improved adhesion between current collector and conductive layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the improved method of Kawai to provide a conductive aluminum current collector with improved adhesion due to the oxide layer as both Kaga and Kawai teach using aluminum current collectors presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so applies a known technique of dealing with the aluminum oxide layer to a known device ready for improvement yielding predictable results of improved adhesion.
Kaga in view of Kawai does not disclose specifically a Cu-Gr multilayer as the conductive layer present. Kawai teaches that the conductive material can be graphite, soft carbon, or other carbon materials and can be combined with a conductive auxiliary agent which can be a conductive metal (Kawai, 0119, 0121). Huang teaches a Cu-Gr conductive composite to be used for its mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties (Huang, introduction paragraph 1). Huang exemplifies that adding layers of graphene to Cu results in improved mechanical properties as opposed to pure Cu film (PDF page 5, left side paragraph 2). Huang does not specify how the composite should be used or the substrate upon which it should be attached and the experiment just discloses the evaluated mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to take the newly modified battery module of Kaga in view of Kawai and replace the graphite and metal conductive layer with the Cu-Gr multilayer of Huang as doing so provides generally better mechanical properties in the form of a higher Young’s modulus without greatly affecting the electrical performance, Huang also teaches that graphene has generally better performance when mixed with copper than graphite does. (Huang, introduction, page 4 3.3 electrical resistivity, and page 5 left side paragraph 2).
Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang does not disclose an AC/DC converter in communication with the battery pack, the AC/DC converter arranged to convert direct current from the battery pack to alternating current for electric power to an electric motor of the vehicle; a DC/DC converter in communication with the battery pack, the DC/DC converter arranged to convert direct current from the first voltage to a second voltage for electric power to electric components of the vehicle; a battery charger in communication with the battery pack, the battery charger arranged to charge the battery pack with a remote electrical energy source; and a controller in communication with the battery charger and the battery pack, the controller arranged to control the battery charger and the battery pack. However, the Battery of Kaga is exemplified for use in an electric vehicle (automobile) (Kaga, 0014) but is silent with respect to specifically how to incorporate it into a vehicle prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
Kouvo teaches a system for an electrically driven vehicle with a converter that converts DC power from a DC link attached to a local electric energy storage (a battery), into AC power for use in a motor (0009). The system also includes a DC/DC converter that can perform voltage conversion as needed for optimization of various parts of the system and is connected to the same DC link described above (0013). There is also a battery charger that can take energy from an outside source and transfer it into the local battery (0015). Lastly, a controller that can maintain a charge level of the battery when the cable is connected to the external source is exemplified (0016). This level of control implies it is connected to and able to manipulate both the battery and the charger so as to be able to control overall charge levels consistently.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery module of Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang, and use it as the local electric energy storage device for the vehicle of Kouvo as doing so allows for the increased energy density and conductivity of the battery described above to be combined with the monitoring, charging, and converting systems of Kouvo for use in an electric vehicle that is tuned optimally and is at a suitable charge level for use when needed (Kouvo 0013, 0014).
Regarding claim 13, Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module of claim 10 as discussed above which has aluminum as the current collector substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Kaga in view of Pan teaches the battery module of claim 10 as discussed above, Kaga further teaches that the cells are interconnected in series (0038). This meets the requirement of the claim and would be obvious for one of ordinary skill to include as it is a part of the battery pack of Kaga as described regarding claim 10.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang and further in view of Pan et al. “Enhanced electrical conductivity in graphene–copper multilayer composite” in: Fazel, M. and Wester, M.J., Analysis of super-resolution single molecule localization microscopy data: A tutorial volume 12, issue 1 (AIP, Jan. 2022, made of record in the IDS filed 04/06/2023)
Regarding claim 2, Kaga in view Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module as described regarding claim 1, Pan teaches that the copper foil (substrate) was 23.6 micrometers thick which falls within the 5-25 micrometers required by the instant application. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the foil of this thickness as the substrate because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the substrate thickness of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 3, the top and bottom current collectors are made of the same material so have the same rejection as stated regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above, Pan further teaches 6 total Cu-Gr layers with a total thickness of 1.3 micrometers (page 3, left side paragraph 3). Assuming all layers are the same thickness, 1.3 micrometers divided by 6 layers means each individual Cu-Gr layer is roughly .217 micrometers thick which is within the range of .1 to .5 micrometers as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the layers of this thickness as the substrate because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the various thicknesses of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 6, the top and bottom current collectors are made of the same material so have the same rejection as stated regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above, Pan further teaches the thickness of the Cu-Gr layers as discussed in claim 5, as all of the Cu-Gr multilayer composites are made the same way they all have the same 6-layer thickness of 1.3 micrometers which is within the range of .2 to 200 micrometers as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the layers of this thickness as the substrate because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the various thicknesses of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 8, Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang teaches the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above, Pan further teaches that the volume fraction of graphene is estimated to be .008% (page 3, left side paragraph 3) which is within the range of .002% and .2% as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use this volume fraction because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the various exact composition of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 19, Kaga in view of Kawai, Huang, and Pan teaches the same things as discussed regarding claim 1 and further discussed regarding claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 20, Kaga in view of Kawai, Huang, and Pan teaches claim 19 as discussed above and Pan further teaches the limitation as discussed regarding claim 7.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga in view of Pan, Kawai, and Huang and further in view of Kouvo.
Regarding claim 11, Kaga in view of Pan teaches the system as described regarding claim 10, Pan further teaches that the copper foil (substrate) was 23.6 micrometers thick which falls within the 5-25 micrometers required by the instant application. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the foil of this thickness as discussed regarding the replacement of the current collectors in claims 10. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the foil of this thickness as the substrate because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the substrate thickness of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 12, the top and bottom current collectors are made of the same material so have the same rejection as stated regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Kaga in view of Pan teaches the system of claim 10 as discussed above, Pan further teaches 6 total Cu-Gr layers with a total thickness of 1.3 micrometers (page 3, left side paragraph 3). Assuming all layers are the same thickness, 1.3 micrometers divided by 6 layers means each individual Cu-Gr layer is roughly .217 micrometers thick which is within the range of .1 to .5 micrometers as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use layers of this thickness as discussed regarding the replacement of the current collectors in claim 10. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the layers of this thickness as the substrate because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the various thicknesses of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 15, the top and bottom current collectors are made of the same material so have the same rejection as stated regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Kaga in view of Pan teaches the system of claim 10 as discussed above, Pan further teaches the thickness of the Cu-Gr layers as discussed in claim 14, as all of the Cu-Gr multilayer composites are made the same way they all have the same 6-layer thickness of 1.3 micrometers which is within the range of .2 to 200 micrometers as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use the layers of this thickness as the substrate because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the various thicknesses of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Regarding claim 17, Kaga in view of Pan teaches the system of claim 10 as discussed above, Pan further teaches that the volume fraction of graphene is estimated to be .008% (page 3, left side paragraph 3) which is within the range of .002% and .2% as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to use layers comprising this volume fraction as discussed in claim 10 regarding the replacement of the current collectors. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use this volume fraction because Kaga, Kawai, and Huang are all silent with respect to the various exact composition of the current collector and overlapping ranges provides a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to use the size and formation information given in Pan because Huang and Pan are representing the similar copper graphene composites as both are made using a chemical vapor deposition process to mix copper and graphene together, Pan also cites Huang as a prior version of a copper graphene composite that was tested (Pan page 3, left side paragraph 1). As Huang is silent in respect to the thickness of different layers as well as the final volume percent of graphene it would have been obvious to look at similar art and try the size and proportion values as explained by Pan. Regarding the clean surface free of oxides required by pan as well as the copper substrate used, as the existence of the clean surface and copper substrate only affects the conductivity and the change in conductivity with the oxide layer present is simple negligible and not actively harmful, it is still obvious to use the sizes and proportions of Pan as the inclusion of graphene to copper still provides substantial benefits in the form of increased mechanical properties of the conductive multilayer which are separate from the substrate upon which the multilayer is attached (Pan, page 3, left side paragraph 2 explains that an unclean surface results in negligible improvement of conductivity, Huang page 5, left side paragraph 2 shows increased mechanical properties for mixing copper and graphene). It is known in the art that copper and aluminum are both valid substrates to be used in a current collector so it would be obvious to use the same substrate thickness as described in Pan regardless of the replacement of the copper substrate with aluminum as present in Kaga in view of Kawai and Huang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743