DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 December 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “the mica-containing tape is wound in 1/2 width lap overlap” (claims 1 & 14), the “first ply comprising a phlogopite mica paper and a second ply comprising a woven glass cloth” (claim 8), and “the armor insulation comprises a tape applied with an approximate 3/4 to 1 inch overlap” (claim 11) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3-4, 8-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, recitation “wherein the mica-containing tape is wound…at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs” is indefinite. A “ft-lb” in US/English/imperial standard of measure (or Joule or N-m in SI) is used as a unit of torque. 1 In contrast, tension is measured in pounds-force (or Newtons in SI). 2 Further, in the winding art, tape tension is reported in three ways: total force, lineal force and stress. Total force reported in units such as lbs, kg or N, is the load applied by the taping machine, lineal force is the force per unit of tape web width and is reported in units in the English system of lbs/in (lbs per inch of web width), which is most commonly abbreviated as PLI (pounds per lineal inch). With stress, total force is not only divided by web width, but also by web thickness (caliper, gauge) as well. 3
In claim 14, in the pre-amble, the adjective “refurbished” describing the formed coil insulation system is indefinite. For purposes of comparison with the prior art, it will not be given patentable weight.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4 & 13-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 & 9-10 of U.S. Patent No.11,979,070 (‘the Patent’) in view of Reid et al. (US 6,836,204). While the language of the claims of the Patent is not identical, the corresponding recitations in the Application’ claims mapped below are not patentably distinct.
Claim 1 of the Application:
An electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation disposed over each successive turn of the formed coil;
a mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape disposed over multiple turns of the coil,
wherein the multiple turns of the coil comprise at least one slot cell section, and
wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape; and
armor insulation disposed over ends of the coil and at least a portion of coil leads,
wherein the formed coil insulation system is rated for an electrical machine operating at between 0 and 7,000 volts,
wherein the at least one slot cell section of the coil is configured to be disposed in a slot cell of the electrical machine,
wherein the mica ground wall insulation comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica, and
wherein the mica-containing tape is wound in 1/2 lap width overlap at a tape tension of between 16 to 18 ft-lbs.
Claim 1 of the Patent:
An electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation disposed over each successive turn of the formed coil;
a mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape disposed over multiple turns of the coil…
wherein the slot cell sections of the coil are configured to be disposed in a slot cell of the electrical machine,
wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape;
armor insulation disposed over ends of the coil and at least a portion of coil leads,
wherein the coil comprises conductors having a gauge sized for operating at approximately between 6,900 and 16,000 volts4
wherein the turn insulation and the multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation extend over the slot cell sections of the coil, and
wherein the mica ground wall insulation comprises at least 160 gm/m.sup.2 of mica,
and wherein the mica-containing tape is wound in ½ lap width overlap at a tension of between 16 to 18 ft-lbs.
Claim 14 of the Application:
An electrical machine refurbished formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation comprising at least one layer of a mica-containing tape disposed over each successive turn of substantially the entire formed coil;
a mica ground wall insulation comprising at least one layer of a mica-containing tape disposed over multiple turns of substantially the entire coil,
wherein the formed coil comprises at least one slot cell section, and wherein the at least one layer comprises an overlap of the mica-containing tape over the at least one slot cell section; and
armor insulation disposed over at least a portion of the ground wall insulation…and extending beyond ends of a core of the machine,
wherein the at least one slot cell section of the coil is configured to be disposed in a slot cell of the electrical machine,
wherein the mica ground wall insulation comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica, and
wherein the mica-containing tape is wound in ½ lap width overlap at a tape tension of between 16 to 18 ft-lbs.
Claim 10 of the Patent:
An electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation comprising at least one layer of a mica-containing tape disposed over each successive turn of substantially the entire formed coil;
multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation comprising at least one layer of a mica-containing tape disposed over multiple turns of substantially the entire coil,
….the ground wall insulation of at least slot cell cavity sections of the coil…wherein the multi-layer comprises a mica-containing overlap of a mica-containing tape;
armor insulation disposed over ends of the coil and at least a portion of coil leads,
wherein the slot cell sections of the coil are configured to be disposed in a slot cell of the electrical machine,
wherein the mica ground wall insulation comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica, and
wherein the mica-containing tape is wound
in 1/2 lap width overlap at a tension of between 16 to 18 ft-lbs.
Regarding claim 1 of the Application, claim 1 of the Patent does not recite “the turn insulation is disposed in one continuous wrap”.
But, Reid teaches an electric motor winding insulation method including wrapping insulating mica tape (c.6:28-30) about coil segments 32 in overlapping 34 or abutting 35 turns or wraps 36 (c.4:3-10; Figs.3A-3B) in a continuous uninterrupted manner without severing or interrupting the insulating tape (abstract; c.2:22-29; c.5:7-26; Figs.5A-5C). Continuous wrapping offers a rapid and cost-effective solution for improved insulation of coils in machine taping applications, and the technique is more efficient and cost effective than existing techniques in which tapes are severed or cut and reapplied to a main body region of a coil (c.2:42-46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of the Patent and provide turn insulation disposed in one continuous wrap since Reid teaches this would have offered a rapid, cost-effective and efficient solution for taping coils.
Claim 3 corresponds to claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 4 corresponds to claim 3 of the Patent.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 9 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 14 of the Application, claim 10 of the Patent recites “armor insulation disposed over ends of the coil and at least a portion of coil leads”, thus implying the armor insulation is “disposed over at least a portion of the ground wall insulation…and extend[s] beyond ends of the core of the machine” since the coil, including ends of the coil, necessarily comprises ground wall insulation, and the coil leads are necessarily beyond the ends of the core of the machine. Claim 10 does not recite armor insulation is disposed over at least a portion of the ground wall insulation “of at least slot cell cavity sections of the coil”. Also, claim 10 of the Patent does not recite “the turn insulation is disposed in one continuous wrap”.
But, regarding the first difference, Reid teaches armor insulation (armor tape, not shown) applied over both the end region and the main region of the coil (abstract), i.e., over at least slot cell cavity sections of the coil or “entire body region” 28, as well as beyond ends of the core, at end region 30 (Figs.4&5F; c.4:19-2:1; c.5:63-c.6:1). The armor insulation provides desired protective properties to the coil (c.6:33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify claim 10 of the Patent such that armor insulation was disposed over at least a portion of the ground wall insulation “of at least slot cell cavity sections of the coil” since Reid teaches this would have provided desired protective properties to the coil.
Regarding the second difference, Reid teaches an electric motor winding insulation method including wrapping insulating mica tape (c.6:28-30) about coil segments 32 in overlapping 34 or abutting 35 turns or wraps 36 (c.4:3-10; Figs.3A-3B) in a continuous uninterrupted manner without severing or interrupting the insulating tape (abstract; c.2:22-29; c.5:7-26; Figs.5A-5C). Continuous wrapping offers a rapid and cost-effective solution for improved insulation of coils in machine taping applications, and the technique is more efficient and cost effective than existing techniques in which tapes are severed or cut and reapplied to a main body region of a coil (c.2:42-46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to further modify claim 10 of the Patent and provide turn insulation disposed in one continuous wrap since Reid teaches this would have offered a rapid, cost-effective and efficient solution for taping coils.
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.
Claim 14 as best understood is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid (US 6,836,204) in view of Emery (US 7,427,712) & Ohata et al. (JP 2002-058190).
Regarding independent claim 14, Reid teaches an electrical machine “refurbished” [sic] (indefinite, not given patentable weight) formed coil insulation system comprising:
turn insulation (“insulating tapes”) 34 comprising at least one layer of a mica-containing tape disposed over each successive turn (end region) 30 of substantially the entire formed
coil 26 (pre-fabricated coil 26 wrapped with one or more insulating tapes; c.3:50-c.4:22; Figs.2&3A);
a mica ground wall insulation comprising at least one layer of a mica-containing tape (“additional tapes”) 38 (c.4:9-11; “any suitable tapes may be employed in the present techniques, such as a mica tape available commercially under the designation Nomex from DuPont...” c.6:29-32) disposed over multiple turns of substantially the entire coil 26 (Fig.3A; c.4:7-10), wherein the formed coil 26 comprises at least one slot cell section (main region) 28 (i.e., “coils are positioned within radially-extending slots of stator core”, c.3:28-30; Figs.1-2; c.5:19-37; Fig.5C), and wherein the at least one layer comprises an overlap of the mica-containing tape over the at least one slot cell section 28 (i.e., mica ground wall insulation/“additional tapes” 38 applied in “…overlapping turns or wraps 40” (Fig.3A, c.4:8-10) over the entire coil, including at least one slot ceil section/main region 28, from point 104 around the entire main portion of the coil up to point armor insulation (not shown) disposed over at least a portion of the ground wall insulation of at least slot cell cavity sections of the coil (“entire body region”) 28 and extending beyond ends of a core of the machine (end region) 30 (Figs.4&5F; c.4:19-21; c.5:63-c.6:1); and
armor insulation (not shown) disposed over at least a portion of the ground wall insulation of at least slot cell cavity sections of the coil (“entire body region”) 28 and extending beyond ends of a core of the machine (at end region 30; Figs.4&5F; c.4:19-2.1; c.5:63-c.6:1);
wherein the turn insulation is disposed in one continuous wrap (i.e., “helical insulating wrap”, c.5:2; “continuously taping” the main region of the coil and a portion of the leads with the insulating tapes “without severing the insulating tapes”, c.8:28-30; Figs.4&5F);
wherein the at least one slot cell section of the coil (main region) 28 is configured to be disposed in a slot cell (i.e., slot) of the electrical machine (since Reid’s “coils are positioned within radially-extending slots of stator core” per c.3:28-30 & Figs.1-2, it follows that the parts of the coils disposed in the slots corresponding to the main region 28 comprises at least one “slot cell section of the coil…configured to be disposed in a slot cell of the electrical machine”).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reid teaches the mica-containing ground wall tape insulation comprising “additional tapes” 38 of mica is applied in overlapping turns or wraps 40 (Fig.3A; c.4:8-10; c.6:29-31) but does not specifically teach the mica tape: (1) “comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica, (2) “is wound in ½ lap width overlap” or (3) “is wound…at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs.”
But, regarding feature (1), Emery teaches a composite tape including a secondary insulation layer 34 comprising mica paper of 160 gm/meter square to provide insulation for a high voltage coil 40 (c.5:44-47; Fig.3). Among other places of his disclosure, Emery c.2:40-42 teaches his composite tape includes “glass composite tape bonded to a layer of mica paper tape”. Thus, regarding feature (1), it would have been obvious to modify the mica-containing ground wall insulation tape of Reid with at least approximately 160 gm/m2 of mica since Emery teaches this amount as suitable for providing insulation for a high voltage coil.
Regarding features (2)-(3), Ohata teaches mica insulating tape 1 used for manufacturing a coil 2 for rotating electric machines comprising, in a first embodiment, a prepreg mica tape 30 mm wide wound in ½ overlap around a coil conductor at a taping tension of 2.7-3.0 kg/10 mm (i.e., between 17.8-19.8 lbs for the 30 mm wide tape; ¶[0003], ¶[0009]; Figs.1-3). With respect to the claimed range of winding tension, per MPEP 2131.03, specific examples within the claimed range and overlapping ranges with sufficient specificity anticipate the claimed range. By winding mica insulation tape in ½ width overlap at a range of tape tension between 17.8-19.8 lbs., Ohata provides the electric machine with insulating tape which does not generate wrinkles during winding of the tape and has excellent insulating properties and productivity (abstract; ¶[0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to wind the mica-containing ground wall tape insulation of Reid and Emery in ½ lap width overlap “at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs” [sic] since Ohata teaches this would have provided mica ground wall insulating tape which does not generate wrinkles during winding of the tape and excellent insulating properties and productivity.
Claim 14 as best understood is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid (US 6,836,204) in view of Emery (US 7,427,712), Anderson et al. (US 3,735,168) and Roisum (“What is the Best Tension for My Product?”, 2006).
As noted in the preceding grounds of rejection, Reid teaches all the claimed features including the mica-containing ground wall tape insulation comprising “additional tapes” 38 of mica is applied in overlapping turns or wraps 40 (Fig.3A; c.4:8-10; c.6:29-31) but does not specifically teach the mica tape: (1) “comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica, (2) “is wound in ½ lap width overlap” or (3) “is wound at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs.”
But, regarding (1), Emery teaches a composite tape including a secondary insulation layer 34 comprising mica paper of 160 gm/meter square to provide insulation for a high voltage coil 40 (c.5:44-47). Among other places of his disclosure, Emery c.2:40-42 teaches his composite tape includes “glass composite tape bonded to a layer of mica paper tape”. Thus, regarding feature (1), it would have been obvious to modify the mica-containing ground wall insulation tape of Reid with at least approximately 160 gm/m2 of mica as Emery teaches this amount as suitable for providing insulation for a high voltage coil.
Regarding (2), Anderson teaches that for about 40 years “[i]nsulation of high voltage stator coils 3 usually accomplished by means of wrapping the coils with insulative mica tape in overlapping helical fashion until the required thickness of insulation is built up on the coil...and it is the usual practice to overlap each turn of tape over one-half the width of the preceding turn” (c.1:49-58). Further, Anderson specifically teaches a test coil wrapped with ten half-lapped layers of mica paper and insulative tape (c.6:15-31) and that this continuous, homogenous, overlapping tape is standard practice and provides constant insulation throughout the length of the coil (c.2:30-38). Thus, it would have been obvious to wrap Reid and Emery’s mica-containing ground wall tape insulation in ½ lap width overlap since Anderson teaches that this would have been desirable to provide insulation of stator coils that was continuous and homogenous and that it was common practice to do so.
Regarding (3), as best understood, Roisum teaches rules for determining the best tension for winding webs in order to reduce waste and delay (p.1), including tensioning the web at 10-25% of the web material’s MD (machine direction) strip tensile strength (p.6). Tensile strengths of mica tapes used for insulated coils of high voltage rotating electrical machines and wrapped in half overlapped fashion typically lie in a range of 109-118 N/10 mm width. 5 Thus, a 1 1/4 inch (31 mm) wide mica tape such as that taught by Anderson 6 has a corresponding tensile strength of about 338-365 N (or 76-82 lb-force). Applying Roisum’s rule, the best tension of 10-25% of tensile strength gives a tension range of 7.6-20.5 lb-force, which overlaps the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would thus have been obvious to wind the mica ground wall tape of Reid, Emery & Anderson at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs since Roisum teaches this range would have been the best tension for winding the tape to reduce waste and delay.
Claims 1, 4, 9 & 13 as best understood are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid (US 6,836,204), Stone, et al. (“Electrical insulation for Rotating Machines”, 2004), Emery (US 7,427,712) and Ohata et al. (JP 2002-058190).
Regarding independent claim 1, Reid teaches an electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation (mica insulation tapes) 34 disposed over each successive turn of the formed (“pre-fabricated”) coil 26 (including coil segments 32; c.3:48-50; Figs.2&3A);
a mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape (“additional tapes”) 38 disposed over multiple turns of the coil (“where additional insulation is desired, additional tapes 38 may be applied…”, c.4:8-10; “any suitable tapes may be employed …such as mica tape…”, c.6:28-32; Fig.3A), wherein the multiple turns of the coil 26 comprise at least one slot cell section (main region) 28 (i.e., “coils are positioned within radially-extending slots of stator core”, c.3:28-30; c.4:1-3; Figs.1-2), and wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape (mica ground wall insulation/“additional tapes” 38 applied in “overlapping turns or wraps” 40 over the entire coil, including at least one slot cell section/ main region 28; c.4:8-10; Fig.3A; from point 104 around the entire main portion of the coil up to point 92, c.5:19-21; Fig.5E); and
armor insulation (not shown) disposed over ends of the coil (end region) 30 (c.5:48-50; Fig.5E) and at least a portion of coil leads 24 (c.5:63-65; Fig.5F), and wherein the turn insulation is disposed in one continuous wrap (i.e., “helical insulating wrap”, c.5:2; “continuously taping” the main region of the coil and a portion of the leads with insulating tapes “without severing the insulating tapes”, c.8:28-30; Figs.4&5F),
wherein the at least one slot cell section of the coil (main region) 28 is configured to be disposed in a slot cell (i.e., slot) of the electrical machine (since Reid’s “coils are positioned within radially-extending slots of stator core” per c.3:28-30 & Figs.1-2, it follows that the parts of the coils disposed in the slots corresponding to the main region 28 comprises at least one “slot cell section of the coil”).
Reid’s machine necessarily operates at a voltage above zero, but Reid does not specifically teach the insulation system is “rated for an electrical machine operating at between 0 and 7,000 volts” [sic], per se. Also, while Reid teaches the mica-containing ground wall tape insulation comprising “additional tapes” 38 of mica is applied in overlapping turns or wraps 40 (Fig.3A; c.4:8-10; c.6:29-31), he does not specifically teach it “comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica, “is wound in ½ lap width overlap” or “is wound…at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs.”
But, regarding the first difference, insofar as this is understood as referring to a functional recitation concerning the manner of operation of the machine within a voltage range, Stone in “Electrical Insulation for Rotating Machines” (2004) teaches that “[f]orm-wound stators are usually intended for machines operating at 1000 V and above” (p. 10) and that they “...operate at a voltage higher than about 3kV” (p.138). Stone teaches one specific example of a 4160 V stator form-wound winding (2400 V line-to-ground; p.12). Stone thus teaches operating voltage ranges from 1000 to 3000 volts and above are common ranges for form-wound stator coils such as Reid’s. Further, Stone’s ranges substantially overlap the claimed range of “between 0 and 7,000 volts”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to “rate” Reid’s formed coil insulation system “for an electrical machine operating at voltages between 0 and 7,000 volts” since Stone teaches this is a common operational voltage range of machines with form-wound stator coils. Per MPEP 2144.05, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also, per MPEP 2131.03, a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range.
Regarding the second difference, Emery teaches a composite tape including a secondary insulation layer 34 comprising mica paper of 160 gm/meter square to provide insulation for a high voltage coil 40 (c.5:34-37 & c.5:44-47). Among other places of his disclosure, Emery c.2:40-42 teaches his composite tape includes “glass composite tape bonded to a layer of mica paper tape”. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the mica-containing ground wall insulation tape of Reid and Stone with at least approximately 160 gm/m2 of mica as Emery teaches this amount as suitable for providing insulation for a high voltage coil.
Regarding the third and fourth differences, Ohata teaches mica insulating tape 1 used for manufacturing a coil 2 for rotating electric machines comprising, in a first embodiment, a prepreg mica tape 30 mm wide wound in ½ overlap around a coil conductor at a taping tension of 2.7-3.0 kg/10 mm (i.e., between 17.8-19.8 lbs for the 30 mm wide tape; ¶[0003], ¶[0009]; Figs.1-3). With respect to the claimed range of winding tension, per MPEP 2131.03, specific examples within the claimed range and overlapping ranges with sufficient specificity anticipate the claimed range. By winding mica insulation tape in ½ width overlap at a range of tension between 17.8-19.8 lbs., Ohata provides the electric machine with insulating tape which does not generate wrinkles during winding of the tape and has excellent insulating properties and productivity (abstract; ¶[0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to wind the mica-containing ground wall tape insulation of Reid, Stone and Emery in ½ lap width overlap “at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs” [sic] since Ohata teaches this would have provided mica ground wall insulating tape which does not generate wrinkles during winding of the tape and excellent insulating properties and productivity.
Regarding claim 4, in Reid the turn insulation (mica insulation tapes) 34 comprises at least one layer of a mica-containing tape (c.4:7-22; c.6:28-32).
Regarding claim 9, in Reid the armor insulation is disposed at least partially over the multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation (additional tapes) 38 (i.e., armor tape wrapped around end and main regions of coil; c.4:19-21; c.5:48-50; c.5:63-65).
Regarding claim 13, in Reid the electrical machine comprises a motor, a generator, or a combination thereof, and the formed coil comprises a stator coil 22 (c.1:5-20 & c.1:29-31; c.3:25-31).
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11 & 13 as best understood are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid (US 6,836,204), Stone, et al. (“Electrical insulation for Rotating Machines”, 2004), Emery (US 7,427,712), Anderson et al. (US 3,735,168) and Roisum (“What is the Best Tension for My Product?”, 2006).
Regarding independent claim 1, Reid teaches an electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation (mica insulation tapes) 34 disposed over each successive turn of the formed (“pre-fabricated”) coil 26 (including coil segments 32; c.3:48-50; Figs.2&3A);
a mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape (“additional tapes”) 38 disposed over multiple turns of the coil (“where additional insulation is desired, additional tapes 38 may be applied…”, c.4:8-10; “any suitable tapes may be employed …such as mica tape…”, c.6:28-32; Fig.3A), wherein the multiple turns of the coil 26 comprise at least one slot cell section (main region) 28 (i.e., “coils are positioned within radially-extending slots of stator core”, c.3:28-30; c.4:1-3; Figs.1-2), and wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape (mica ground wall insulation/“additional tapes” 38 applied in “overlapping turns or wraps” 40 over the entire coil, including at least one slot cell section/ main region 28; c.4:8-10; Fig.3A; from point 104 around the entire main portion of the coil up to point 92, c.5:19-21; Fig.5E); and
armor insulation (not shown) disposed over ends of the coil (end region) 30 (c.5:48-50; Fig.5E) and at least a portion of coil leads 24 (c.5:63-65; Fig.5F), and wherein the turn insulation is disposed in one continuous wrap (i.e., “helical insulating wrap”, c.5:2; “continuously taping” the main region of the coil and a portion of the leads with insulating tapes “without severing the insulating tapes”, c.8:28-30; Figs.4&5F),
wherein the at least one slot cell section of the coil (main region) 28 is configured to be disposed in a slot cell (i.e., slot) of the electrical machine (since Reid’s “coils are positioned within radially-extending slots of stator core” per c.3:28-30 & Figs.1-2, it follows that the parts of the coils disposed in the slots corresponding to the main region 28 comprises at least one “slot cell section of the coil”).
Reid’s machine necessarily operates at a voltage above zero, but Reid does not specifically teach the insulation system is “rated for an electrical machine operating at between 0 and 7,000 volts” [sic], per se. Also, while Reid teaches the mica-containing ground wall tape insulation comprising “additional tapes” 38 of mica is applied in overlapping turns or wraps 40 (Fig.3A; c.4:8-10; c.6:29-31), he does not specifically teach the tape comprises “at least 160 gm/m2 of mica” or that it is wound “in ½ lap width overlap” and “at a tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs.”
But, regarding the first difference, insofar as this is understood as referring to a functional recitation concerning the manner of operation of the machine within a voltage range, Stone in “Electrical Insulation for Rotating Machines” (2004) teaches that “[f]orm-wound stators are usually intended for machines operating at 1000 V and above” (p. 10) and that they “...operate at a voltage higher than about 3kV” (p.138). Stone teaches one specific example of a 4160 V stator form-wound winding (2400 V line-to-ground; p.12). Thus, Stone teaches operating voltage ranges from 1000 to 3000 volts and above are common ranges for form-wound stator coils such as Reid’s. Further, Stone’s ranges substantially overlap the claimed range of “between 0 and 7,000 volts”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to “rate” Reid’s formed coil insulation system “for an electrical machine operating at voltages between 0 and 7,000 volts” since Stone teaches this is a common operational voltage range of machines with form-wound stator coils. Per MPEP 2144.05, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also, per MPEP 2131.03, a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range.
Regarding the second difference, Emery teaches a composite tape including a secondary insulation layer 34 comprising mica paper of 160 gm/meter square to provide insulation for a high voltage coil 40 (c.5:34-37 & c.5:44-47). Among other places of his disclosure, Emery c.2:40-42 teaches his composite tape includes “glass composite tape bonded to a layer of mica paper tape”. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the mica-containing ground wall insulation tape of Reid and Stone with at least approximately 160 gm/m2 of mica since Emery teaches this amount as suitable for providing insulation for a high voltage coil.
Regarding the third difference, Anderson teaches that for about 40 years “[i]nsulation of high voltage stator coils 3 [was] usually accomplished by means of wrapping the coils with insulative mica tape in overlapping helical fashion until the required thickness of insulation is built up on the coil...and it is the usual practice to overlap each turn of tape over one-half the width of the preceding turn” (c.1:49-58). Further, Anderson specifically teaches a test coil wrapped with ten half-lapped layers of mica paper and insulative tape (c.6:15-31) and that this continuous, homogenous, overlapping tape is standard practice and provides constant insulation throughout the length of the coil (c.2:30-38). Thus, it would have been obvious to wrap Reid, Stone and Emery’s mica-containing ground wall tape insulation in ½ lap width overlap since Anderson teaches that this would have been desirable to provide insulation of stator coils that was continuous and homogenous and that it was common practice to do so.
Regarding the fourth difference, as best understood, Roisum teaches rules for determining the best tension for winding webs in order to reduce waste and delay (p.1), including tensioning the web at 10-25% of the web material’s MD (machine direction) strip tensile strength (p.6). Tensile strengths of mica tapes used for insulated coils of high voltage rotating electrical machines and wrapped in half overlapped fashion typically lie in a range of 109-118 N/10 mm width. 7 Thus, a 1 1/4 inch (31 mm) wide mica tape such as that taught by Anderson 8 has a corresponding tensile strength of about 338-365 N (or 76-82 lb-force). Applying Roisum’s rule, the best tension of 10-25% of tensile strength gives a tension range of 7.6-20.5 lb-force, which overlaps the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would thus have been obvious to wind the mica ground wall tape of Reid, Stone Emery & Anderson at a tape tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs since Roisum teaches this range would have been the best tension for winding the tape to reduce waste and delay.
Regarding claim 4, in Reid the turn insulation (mica insulation tapes) 34 comprises at least one layer of a mica-containing tape (c.4:7-22; c.6:28-32).
Regarding claim 9, in Reid the armor insulation is disposed at least partially over the multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation (additional tapes) 38 (i.e., armor tape wrapped around end and main regions of coil; c.4:19-21; c.5:48-50; c.5:63-65).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson teaches the usual sizes of the mica tape to wrap the stator coils in half-lap fashion include tapes with 1 ¼ in width, resulting in an approximately 5/8-in overlap. While the specific range of ¾ to 1 ½ inch overlap is not disclosed, this would have been obvious since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, in Reid the electrical machine comprises a motor, a generator, or a combination thereof, and the formed coil comprises a stator coil 22 (c.1:5-20 & c.1:29-31; c.3:25-31).
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lugosi et al. (US 4,260,924).
The combinations, in particular Reid, teach individual conductors (coil segments) 32 (Fig.3A) comprising each turn, but do not further teach “a strand insulation disposed between the respective conductor [32] and the turn insulation [mica tapes 34/35].”
But, Lugosi teaches a conductor bar made up of a number of copper subconductors/strands insulated from each other for the expected strand-to-strand voltage, for high efficiency (c.1:30-35 & 50-58; c.3:54-62).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum and provide strand insulation disposed between conductors as Lugosi teaches this was desirable for efficient operation at the expected strand-to-strand voltage.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Roberts et al. (US Pat.Pub.2007/0089899).
The combinations, in particular Reid, teach turn insulation comprising multiple layers of insulating tape including mica tape (Nomex) and a glass, fiberglass or polyester armor tape (c.6:28-33), i.e., a woven glass cloth, but do not teach a first ply comprising a phlogopite mica paper and a second ply comprising a woven glass cloth.
But, Roberts teaches mica-coated electrically insulating tape comprising a woven glass fiber layer with a mica layer disposed thereon (abstract). Further, the mica comprises phlogopite mica (¶[0019]). Roberts’ tape is suitable for insulating electrical conductors such as wire suitable for use in high temperature environments, and coils for use in high voltage electrical motors and generators (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum and provide insulation of a first ply comprising a phlogopite mica paper and a second ply comprising a woven glass cloth since Roberts teaches this would have been desirable for high voltage motor or generator coils in high temperature environments.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum as applied to claim 1, further in view of Iida (US 4,488,685).
The combinations, in particular Ohata and Roisum, teach application of tension of the ground wall insulation, but do not further teach “application tension of the armor insulation does not exceed an application tension of the ground wall insulation.”
But, Iida teaches a tape winding machine for a coil A which provides a tape tension control mechanism to control the tension produced in the insulating tape which is being (unwound from) a tape roll carried by a taping ring to a constant value so that a constant force may be exerted on the coil (c.2:58-63).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum and provide a process of manufacture wherein the application tension of the armor insulation does not exceed an application tension of the ground wall insulation since Iida teaches this would have been desirable so that a constant force is exerted on the coil.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lang (US 8,912,705).
The combinations, in particular Reid, substantially teach the invention including armor tape insulation but do not further teach the armor tape insulation comprises a “shrinking” armor insulation, per se.
But, Lang teaches a method and apparatus for insulating induction machine coil connectors including a shrinking armor insulation comprising a biasing member 82 in the form of a heat shrink material (Fig,10: abstract; c.3:67-c.4:5). The heat shrinking armor insulation achieves greater uniformity of application of the insulation layers and ease of installation in confined spaces, reducing hand insulation application variables during fabrication (c. 1:49-51 & c.1:63-67).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid, Stone, Emery & Ohata or Reid, Stone, Emery, Anderson and Roisum and provide a shrinking armor insulation since Lang teaches this would have been desirable to achieve greater uniformity of application and ease of installation during fabrication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not wholly persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant states that “a Terminal Disclaimer…will be filed when the present claims are allowed” (Response, p.5). Since no Terminal Disclaimer has been filed, the rejection is not withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA ), the language “wherein the formed coil insulation system is rated for an electrical machine operating at between 0 and 7,000 volts” (claim 1), based on Applicant’s comments (Response, p.5) that the language refers to the formed coil insulation being able to handle up to 7,000 volts, the claimed voltage “rating” is understood to refer to an inherent functional feature of the manner of operation of the claimed formed coil insulation system. Per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With regard to the indefiniteness of the recitation “wherein the mica-containing tape is wound…at a tension of between 16-18 ft-lbs” (claims 1 & 14), Applicant points to the specification’s teaching in [0049] that the tape tension is controlled at approximately 16-18 ft-lbs by an automatic taping machine. Applicant states that the term “tension” “refers to tape machine tensioning the tape at 16-18 ft-lbs, such as via spindle torque” (Response p.6). But, Applicant does not address what is meant by 16-18 ft-lbs. Further, “spindle torque” is not mentioned in the specification, and even if it were, it would not resolve the indefiniteness regarding the “ft-lbs” standard of measure. As noted in the rejection, tape tension is measured in pounds-force (or Newtons in SI) whereas a “ft-lb” in US/English/imperial standard of measure (or Joule or N-m in SI) is used as a unit of torque. In the winding art, tape tension is reported in three ways: total force, lineal force and stress. Total force reported in units such as lbs, kg or N, is the load applied by the machine, lineal force is the force per unit of tape web width and is reported in units in the English system of lbs/in (lbs per inch of web width), which is most commonly abbreviated as PLI (pounds per lineal inch). With stress, total force is not only divided by web width, but also by web thickness (caliper, gauge) as well.
In claim 14, in the pre-amble, the adjective “refurbished” describing the formed coil insulation system remains indefinite. For purposes of comparison with the prior art, it will not be given patentable weight.
Regarding the art rejections, Applicant argues Emery is silent with regard to mica ground wall insulation comprising at least 160 gm/m2 of mica (Response, p.7). This is not persuasive. Emery teaches a composite tape including a secondary insulation layer 34 comprising mica paper of 160 gm/meter square to provide insulation for a high voltage coil 40 (c.5:44-47; Fig.3). In the context of ground wall tapes used for coil insulation such as Emery, “160 gm/m2” refers to the mica content of the paper. Other references use the same “gm/m2” units. See, e.g., the first column header of the table in [0037] of Reid et al. (US Pat.Pub. 2013/0221790), or [0038] of Reid et al. (US Pat.Pub.2014/0300241).
Applicant also argues Ohata's teaching of a prepreg mica tape wound at 2.7-3.0 kg/10 mm tension does not fall in the claimed range (Response, p.7). But, Applicant's argument presumes an unspecified definition for 'ft-lbs’ (which is itself an indefinite unit, as noted in the 35 USC 112 second paragraph rejection) and Applicant’s unit conversion analysis is based on an misunderstanding of Ohata. Specifically, Ohata's teaching of 2.7-3 kg/10 mm taping tension (see, e.g., translation p.3) is the amount of tension measured in force (in kg) relative to width (in mm) of tape. For a 30 mm wide tape, a lower bound for the tension is 3x 2.7 kg or 8.1 kg, i.e., 17.85 pounds, which is within the claimed range, insofar as the units can be determined.
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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See, e.g., Foot-pound (energy) - Wikipedia.
2 See, e.g., Tension (physics) - Wikipedia.
3 D.Roisum, “What is the Best Tension for My Product”, pp.1-2.
4 Per MPEP 2131.03(II), prior art which teaches a range overlapping the claimed range with sufficient specificity anticipates the prior art.
5 See, e.g., Iwata et al. US 6,153,301, Table I, c.5:20-25 & c.61-65.
6 Anderson, c.1:52-54.
7 See, e.g., Iwata et al. US 6,153,301, Table I, c.5:20-25 & c.61-65.
8 Anderson, c.1:52-54.