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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that restriction requirement between Groups I and III and Group II and III are improper. This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons:
First, Group III is directed to a copper graphene composite powder which can be produced by various materially different processes such as PM, electrochemical deposition and CVD as evidenced by applicant submitted NPL document “Copper/graphene composite: A review” from IDS of 11/19/2025. Examiner merely cited CVD as one of the many materially different processes as an example.
Second, applicant’s argument that CVD is used to coat a substrate via chemical reaction which is not what instant application claims is not persuasive. The argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which uses “comprising”. The transitional and open phrase “comprising” does not exclude other unrecited steps such as chemical reaction steps.
Third, applicant’s argument that CVD would produce a copper and graphene coated substrate rather than a copper graphene composite powder is not persuasive because applicant’s own submitted NP document “Copper/graphene composite: A review” from IDS of 11/19/2025 evidences that CVD would be expected to produce a copper and graphene composite powder as claimed.
Hence, for the above reason, applicant’s argument that restriction requirement between Groups I and III; and Group II and III being improper is unpersuasive.
Furthermore, applicant also argues that restriction requirement between Group I and II is improper because the substitution of Ti for the claimed copper cannot meet the burden of establishing that the practice would be a materially different process. Argument is merely allegation because Ti and Cu are indeed materially different in nearly every key property such as atomic number, density, melting point, color, TS, hardness and ductility. Hence, the fact instant apparatus claim 10’s first and second nozzle be configured to introduce a different material such as Ti to make a Ti-graphene composite powder suggest apparatus would be used for a materially different process.
Hence, restriction requirement between Group I and II is proper.
Based on the above reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Hence, claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-9 are presented for this examination. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/19/2025 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 ad 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “high-pressure” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "copper particles" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN116803571A) in view of Yang (CN112877562A) and Hidalgo-Manrique (NPL document “Copper/graphene composite: a review” of IDS of 11/19/2025) .
As for claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9, Fang discloses a method of making metal/non-metal composite powder, such as copper-graphite composite powder [0030], the method comprising
Providing an inert gas environment [0074]
Introducing a first atomized molten metal such as copper to the inert gas environment through a primary high-pressure nozzle (4 of Figure below). Hence, instant claimed first mist being atomized copper is met.
Introducing a second atomized solid powder such as graphite to the same inert gas environment via a secondary nozzle (7 of Figure below) Hence, instant claimed second mist is met.
Mixing the first atomized copper and second atomized graphite mists to produce a copper graphite composite powder. Figure below illustrates copper melt is fed into the inert environment through high pressure nozzle (4), which meets instant claim 4.
The composite powder is then crushed, sieved using 80-mesh (Claim 6) which meets the instant claim 2 separating step.
Fan differs from instant claim 1 such that it does not disclose (1) the first atomized copper with a negative charge; (2) second mist is graphene flakes with a positive charge; and (3) final product is copper graphene composite powder.
PNG
media_image1.png
301
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hidalgo-Manrique discloses a copper graphene composite and expressly discloses nanosized graphene (Page 12258 Col 2 last paragraph) is a well-known precursor material to make the copper graphene composite powder. Hence, instant claim 5 wherein clause is met. Hidalgo-Manrique further suggests electrochemical exfoliation of graphite to form graphene flakes (Page 12238 Col 1 bridging Col 2 line 2) as required by instant claim 7. Since Hidalgo-Manrique discloses Cu/graphene composite is ideal structural heat sink material and traditional powder metallurgy process is disclosed to make the Cu/graphene composite, Hidalgo-Manrique suggests forming Cu/graphene composite heat sink from the composite powder via traditional powder metallurgy process as required by instant claim 9.
The precursor material copper is CuO particle with 500 nm in size (Page 12244 Col 2) which supports instant claim 6 wherein clause.
Fan expressly discloses his method of making metal/non-metal composite powder can be used for different industries by preparing the non-metal according to the different industries requirement. [0030]
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to replace graphite of Fan with graphene flakes of Hidalgo-Manrique, in the process of Fan in order to arrive at graphene-cooper composite powder of claimed invention.
Yang discloses a graphene reinforced copper based composite material by making the graphene positively charged and copper negatively charged so that the positively charged graphene is attracted to the negatively charged copper to improve the interface connection of graphene and copper. (English translation Page 2 paragraph 3)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to atomize copper with a negative charge and atomize graphene flakes with a positive charge, in the process of Fan in view of Hidalgo-Manrique as Yang discloses interface connect of graphene and copper is improved when copper is charged negatively and graphene is charged positively.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN116803571A) in view of Yang (CN112877562A) and Hidalgo-Manrique (NPL document “Copper/graphene composite: a review” IDS of 11/19/2025) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US20240339733).
As for claim 8, neither Fang nor Yang or Hidalgo-Manrique disclose use of graphene copper composite powder to make a graphene copper composite busbar via additive manufacturing.
Liu discloses a busbar including multilayer composites having copper graphene lamination via electron beam deposition process which is additive manufacturing.
By utilizing graphene's superior conductivity in conjunction with copper, the busbar reduces material use while delivering higher performance, making it a critical component for EVs where space, weight, and energy efficiency are crucial.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply the graphene copper composite powder of Fan in view of Yang and Hidalgo-Manrique to form a graphene copper composite busbar via AM process as disclosed by Liu for the benefit of efficiently distributing electrical power between different terminals in an EV.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN116803571A) in view of Yang (CN112877562A) and Hidalgo-Manrique (NPL document “Copper/graphene composite: a review”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 3D_natives (NPL document “Graphene Improves Properties of copper powder used in Additive manufacturing”).
As for claim 3, instant claimed limitation is merely how the claimed graphene copper composite powder is used.
3D_natives discloses graphene copper composite powder used in precursor powder material in additive manufacturing is well known since 2021.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply sieved graphene copper composite powder obtained from the process of Fan in view of Yang and Hidalgo-Manrique as precursor powder material in additive manufacturing as suggested by 3D_natives with expected success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights