DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 04 August 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 August 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claims 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0207158 to Barbieri et al., effectively filed 26 May 2020, (“Barbieri”) in view of US 2019/0389727 to Perkins et al. (“Perkins”).
With regard to Claims 14 and 20, Barbieri teaches a method of making a composite wire material comprising annealing a core wire comprising nickel, and coating layers of graphene thereon (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0020]-[0024], [0032]). Barbieri does not teach the claimed annealing conditions and temperatures. Perkins is similarly directed to production of composite wire material comprising carbon layers including graphene thereon, and teaches annealing under a hydrogen and argon atmosphere prior to carbon layer deposition in order to minimize residual oxygen and reduce crystallographic defects (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0037], [0048]-[0053], [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed annealing conditions and temperatures in the method of Barbieri in order to minimize residual oxygen and reduce crystallographic defects as taught by Perkins.
With regard to Claims 15 and 18, Perkins teaches annealing for a duration of 5 minutes (see Example 1, ¶¶ [0091], [0096]) and that gas flow rates are adjustable in order to achieve optimal/desirable reduction and/or metal sublimation rates (see ¶ [0054]). To the extent the reference does not expressly teach the claimed gas flow rates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed gas flow rates throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in pursuit of desired reduction and/or sublimation rates.
With regard to Claim 16, Perkins teaches vapor deposition of benzene for graphene formation and temperatures within the claimed range (see ¶¶ [0049], [0051]). Perkins also teaches pausing and resuming production via control systems (see ¶ [0056]) and that gas flow rates are adjustable in order to achieve optimal/desirable deposition rates (see ¶ [0054]). To the extent the reference does not expressly teach the claimed gas flow rates and duration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed gas flow rates and duration throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in pursuit of desired deposition rates.
With regard to Claim 17, Perkins teaches exposing the wire substrate under a flowing mixture of hydrogen and argon gas (see Example 1; ¶¶ [0091], [0096]). Perkins also teaches pausing and resuming production via control systems (see ¶ [0056]). The reference does not expressly teach the claimed duration; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have held wire substrates in a ready state such as that taught by Perkins for any duration prior to annealing and coating operations in order to meet fluctuating production demands.
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri in view of Perkins as applied to Claim 18, and further in view of US 2011/0195207 to Hong et al. (“Hong”).
With regard to Claim 19, Barbieri and Perkins do not expressly teach vacuum environments as claimed. To the extent that vacuum annealing and/or coating operations are not implicitly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to avoid impurities, Hong is similarly directed to producing graphene-coated wire via vapor deposition of benzene, and teaches conducting operations under vacuum (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0043], [0075], [0077]-[0078], [0110]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have conducted operations in the method of Barbieri in view of Perkins under vacuum with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights