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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/3/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the lack of support in the provisional application that Kappagantula claims priority to. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/3/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Li (CN 111349905) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the lack of support in the provisional application that Kappagantula claims priority to. The rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are entered in view of Chang et al. (KR 101822073).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13-17, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693) in view of Chang et al. (KR 101822073). Citation to Kappagantula will refer to its provisional application 63/320,874.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-8, 13-16 and 23, Kappagantula teaches an aluminum-carbon composite billets (pp. 2-3, ¶ 3) containing 0-1% carbon in the form of graphene or carbon nanotubes (p. 3, ¶ 3), with examples containing 100-2500 ppm (see p. 19). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness as to carbon content. See MPEP 2144.05 I. These composite billets are obtained by taking cylindrical alloy members and drilling multiple holes that run the length of the cylinder, and adding graphene ink into the holes (p. 18). The graphene ink contains graphene nanoplatelets in an isopropanol dispersion, which is evaporated (p. 18). The composite billet is intended for extrusion into wires (p. 20), and Kappagantula teaches the graphene has a homogeneous distribution and enhanced conductivity (p. 16).
Kappagantula does not teach the billet is made from at least 99% copper. While Kappagantula is directed towards aluminum/carbon composites (pp. 2-3, ¶ 3), Kappagantula does recognize that copper and aluminum are both used for electrical applications (p. 2, ¶ 2). Chang teaches a carbon-containing billet for extrusion (¶ 10), where the billet is formed from a metal such as aluminum or copper (¶ 16) with carbon powder charged into a hole formed in the billet (¶¶ 39-41). Chang specifies the metal can be copper or alloys thereof (¶ 16), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean that “copper” refers to substantially pure copper. Extruded products in Chang include wiring and electrical conductors (¶¶ 2-3). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize aluminum and copper as functionally equivalent materials for use as an electrical conductor, and Chang establishes there is an expectation of success in extruding a copper/carbon composite where the carbon is loaded into holes of a billet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute aluminum for substantially pure copper, as suggested by Kappagantula and Chang.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5, Kappagantula teaches an alternative embodiment where the billet is cut into half cylinders, the graphene is deposited on the flat surfaces, and the half cylinders are brought together and held in place by an extrusion ring (corresponding to the metallic jacket) (p. 18).
Regarding claims 9-10, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Kappagantula recognizes the presence of carbon increases conductivity (p. 16).
Regarding claim 20, Kappagantula does not expressly teach an extrusion ratio of at least 80:1; however, this is an intended use and nothing about the billet of Kappagantula suggests it could not be extruded at the claimed ratios. Accordingly, the prior art billet is presumed to be capable of extrusion at the claimed ratios absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappagantula et al. (WO 2023/177693) in view of Chang et al. (KR 101822073) and Ni et al. (CN 1787137).
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 13-16, 18-19 and 24, Kappagantula teaches an aluminum-carbon composite billets (pp. 2-3, ¶ 3) containing 0-1% carbon in the form of graphene or carbon nanotubes (p. 3, ¶ 3), with examples containing 100-2500 ppm (see p. 19). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness as to carbon content. See MPEP 2144.05 I. These composite billets are obtained by taking cylindrical alloy members and drilling multiple holes that run the length of the cylinder, and adding graphene ink into the holes (p. 18). The graphene ink contains graphene nanoplatelets in an isopropanol dispersion, which is evaporated (p. 18). The composite billet is intended for extrusion into wires (p. 20), and Kappagantula teaches the graphene has a homogeneous distribution and enhanced conductivity (p. 16).
Kappagantula does not teach the billet is made from a copper-silver alloy. While Kappagantula is directed towards aluminum/carbon composites (pp. 2-3, ¶ 3), Kappagantula does recognize that copper and aluminum are both used for electrical applications (p. 2, ¶ 2). Chang teaches a carbon-containing billet for extrusion (¶ 10), where the billet is formed from a metal such as aluminum, copper, or alloys thereof (¶ 16) with carbon powder charged into a hole formed in the billet (¶¶ 39-41). Extruded products in Chang include wiring and electrical conductors (¶¶ 2-3). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize aluminum and copper as functionally equivalent materials for use as an electrical conductor, and Chang establishes there is an expectation of success in extruding a copper/carbon composite where the carbon is loaded into holes of a billet.
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 modified Kappagantula to obtain a copper composite wire having improved conductivity. The alloy composition of modified Kappagantula overlaps the claimed composition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute aluminum for a copper-silver alloy, as suggested by Kappagantula, Chang, and Ni.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5, Kappagantula teaches an alternative embodiment where the billet is cut into half cylinders, the graphene is deposited on the flat surfaces, and the half cylinders are brought together and held in place by an extrusion ring (corresponding to the metallic jacket) (p. 18).
Regarding claims 9-10, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Kappagantula recognizes the presence of carbon increases conductivity (p. 16).
Regarding claim 20, Kappagantula does not expressly teach an extrusion ratio of at least 80:1; however, this is an intended use and nothing about the billet of Kappagantula suggests it could not be extruded at the claimed ratios. Accordingly, the prior art billet is presumed to be capable of extrusion at the claimed ratios absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11-12 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach the claimed billet having a longitudinal void being a lengthwise linear cut with a copper foil coated with the carbon material (claim 3), or the claimed plurality of metal wires (claims 11-12 and 21), or the billet being formed from sintered metallic and carbon material powders.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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