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
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 1-4, 6-8, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-8, and 13-16, Kappagantula teaches a C10100 copper billet containing a monolayer graphene on copper foil prepared as feedstock for extrusion (p. 39, lines 14-28). The extruded copper-grapene wire has higher conductivity than copper without the carbon (p.8, lines 19-22). Kappagantula teaches examples of billets (see Figs. 41 and 49) wherein cylindrical billets have multiple holes or slots extending longitudinally in and through the billet. Graphene is placed into these holes or slots (see p. 50, lines 4-13 and p. 51 line 28-p. 52 line 13). Kappagantula suggests the carbon represents at least 0.001% wt of the billet (p. 49, lines 3-7), which is at least 10 ppm. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
475
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kappagantula teaches a foil can be inserted into the slot (p. 52, lines 7-10). Kappagantula also teaches graphene on copper foil (p. 39, lines 14-28).
Regarding claim 4, Kappagantula teaches the slot can extend all the way through the center of the billet, splitting it into two materials (p. 50, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Kappagantula recognizes the presence of carbon increases conductivity (p. 39, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 20, Kappagantula suggests extrusion ratios of up to 200:1 (p. 11, lines 14-16), which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Charsonville (US 3,890,818).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed above. Kappagantula does not expressly teach enclosing the billet in a metal sheath. Charsonville teaches it is known in the art to enclose a billet for hot extrusion with a metal sheath to avoid surface contamination (col. 1, lines 15-27). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose the billet of Kappagantula with a metal sheath, as suggested by Charsonville, to prevent contamination during the extrusion process. It is also readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that enclosing the billet of Kappagantula (which is at least split in half) in a metal sheath would prevent dislocation of the individual pieces during extrusion.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Chang et al. (KR 101822073).
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed above. Kappatangula does not expressly teach tamping graphene into the hole of the billet and putting a cap to retain the graphene in the hole. Chang teaches a composite billet (¶ 43) having a hole into which powder can be charged, compressed (¶ 44), and sealed into the billet (¶ 47). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to charge and compress graphene into the hole of the billet of Kappagantula because it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so ensures uniform loading of graphene in the hole, thus resulting in a more uniform extrudate. It would also have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention to put a cap in the hole to retain the graphene inside of the billet because doing so prevents loss of powder during extrusion (¶ 48).
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693) in view of Ni et al. (CN 1787137).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-16, and 18-19, Kappagantula teaches a C10100 copper billet, and a monolayer graphene on copper foil prepared as feedstock for extrusion (p. 39, lines 14-28). The extruded copper-grapene wire has higher conductivity than copper without the carbon (p.8, lines 19-22). Kappagantula teaches examples of billets (see Figs. 41 and 49) wherein cylindrical billets have multiple holes or slots extending longitudinally in and through the billet. Graphene is placed into these holes or slots (see p. 50, lines 4-13 and p. 51 line 28-p. 52 line 13). Kappagantula teaches the carbon represents at least 0.001% wt of the billet (p. 49, lines 3-7), which is at least 10 ppm. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Kappagantula does not expressly teach or suggest a Cu-Ag alloy billet body. Ni teaches adding 0.001%-1.5%wt Ag to a copper-carbon electrical contact material to improve electrical conductivity (¶ 6). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include silver, as taught by Ni, in the copper-graphene composite billet of Kappagantula to obtain a copper composite wire having improved conductivity. The alloy composition of modified Kappagantula overlaps the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 3, Kappagantula teaches a foil can be inserted into the slot (p. 52, lines 7-10). Kappagantula also teaches graphene on copper foil (p. 39, lines 14-28).
Regarding claim 4, Kappagantula teaches the slot can extend all the way through the center of the billet, splitting it into two materials (p. 50, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Kappagantula recognizes the presence of carbon increases conductivity (p. 39, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 20, Kappagantula suggests extrusion ratios of up to 200:1 (p. 11, lines 14-16), which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693) in view of Ni et al. (CN 1787137), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Charsonville (US 3,890,818).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed above. Modified Kappagantula does not expressly teach enclosing the billet in a metal sheath. Charsonville teaches it is customary to enclose a billet for hot extrusion with a metal sheath to avoid surface contamination (col. 1, lines 15-27). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose the billet of Modified Kappagantula with a metal sheath, as suggested by Charsonville, to prevent contamination during the extrusion process. It is also readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that enclosing the billet of Modified Kappagantula (which is at least split in half) in a metal sheath would prevent dislocation of the individual pieces during extrusion.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693) in view of Ni et al. (CN 1787137), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Chang et al. (KR 101822073).
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed above. Modified Kappatangula does not expressly teach tamping graphene into the hole of the billet and putting a cap to retain the graphene in the hole. Chang teaches a composite billet (¶ 43) having a hole into which powder can be charged, compressed (¶ 44), and sealed into the billet (¶ 47). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to charge and compress graphene into the hole of the billet of Modified Kappagantula because it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so ensures uniform loading of graphene in the hole, thus resulting in a more uniform extrudate. It would also have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention to put a cap in the hole to retain the graphene inside of the billet because doing so prevents loss of powder during extrusion (¶ 48).
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111349905) in view of Yin et al. (CN 111331127).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-16, Li teaches forming a forming an extruded billet comprised of rods of a copper-carbon composite which comprise graphene on the surface of the rods, where the copper is pure copper or an alloy (¶ 10). These rods are bundled into a sheath and used to prepare copper-carbon composite wires (¶ 10). Li suggests use of a pure copper sheath (¶ 14). Voids are inherently formed between rods in the bundle, with graphene present in the void since the graphene is formed on the surface of the rods. Given that graphene has very high conductivity, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting copper-carbon composite wire to have higher conductivity that the copper alone, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112. Li does not expressly teach or suggest a weight percentage of the carbon relative to the copper.
Yin teaches a copper-graphene composite wire (¶ 6). Yin teaches the amount of graphene added to the copper is preferably 0.005%-1% wt (¶ 15), which equals 50-10,000 ppm. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to add graphene to the billet of Li in the amounts disclosed by Yin because Yin teaches this addition of graphene achieves high strength and high conductivity (¶ 5). The range of the prior art combination overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 6-8, the longitudinal voids between rods can be considered holes which extend along the longitudinal length of the billet and contain graphene.
Regarding claim 17, Li recognizes graphene is ultra-conductive and therefore would increase conductivity (¶ 6).
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches an extrusion ratio of 10-100 (¶ 15). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches the billet is formed from metallic rods which have been cut and are coated with graphene (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 22, Li teaches the billet is formed from copper powder with graphene grown thereon (¶ 10). The rods which form the billet are subjected to temperatures of up to 1000-1070°C (¶ 12), which is sufficient temperature for sintering. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the billet to be formed of sintered copper and graphene powder, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111349905) in view of Yin et al. (CN 111331127) and Ni et al. (CN 1787137).
Regarding claims 1, 11-16 and 18-19, Li teaches forming a forming an extruded billet comprised of rods of a copper-carbon composite which comprise graphene on the surface of the rods, where the copper is pure copper or an alloy (¶ 10). These rods are bundled into a sheath and used to prepare copper-carbon composite wires (¶ 10). Li suggests use of a pure copper sheath (¶ 14). Voids are inherently formed between rods in the bundle, with graphene present in the void since the graphene is formed on the surface of the rods. Given that graphene has very high conductivity, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting copper-carbon composite wire to have higher conductivity that the copper alone, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112. Li does not expressly teach or suggest a weight percentage of the carbon relative to the copper.
Yin teaches a copper-graphene composite wire (¶ 6). Yin teaches the amount of graphene added to the copper is preferably 0.005%-1% wt (¶ 15), which equals 50-10,000 ppm. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to add graphene to the billet of Li in the amounts disclosed by Yin because Yin teaches this addition of graphene achieves high strength and high conductivity (¶ 5). The range of the prior art combination overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Li in view of Yin does not expressly teach or suggest a Cu-Ag alloy billet body. Ni teaches adding 0.001%-1.5%wt Ag to a copper-carbon electrical contact material to improve electrical conductivity (¶ 6). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include silver, as taught by Ni, in the copper-graphene composite billet of Li in view of Yin to obtain a copper composite wire having improved conductivity.
Regarding claims 6-8, the longitudinal voids between rods can be considered holes which extend along the longitudinal length of the billet and contain graphene.
Regarding claim 17, Li recognizes graphene is ultra-conductive and therefore would increase conductivity (¶ 6).
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches an extrusion ratio of 10-100 (¶ 15). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches the billet is formed from metallic rods which have been cut and are coated with graphene (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 22, Li teaches the billet is formed from copper powder with graphene grown thereon (¶ 10). The rods which form the billet are subjected to temperatures of up to 1000-1070°C (¶ 12), which is sufficient temperature for sintering. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the billet to be formed of sintered copper and graphene powder, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights