DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a stator lamination stack” (line 3) and “a laminated core of a stator” (line 17) are inconsistent even though they refer to the same thing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12, 14-16 & 18-20 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 12, “the B-stage impregnating resin” (third-to-last line) lacks antecedent basis.
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 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaensch (DE 3133811) in view of Kipple et al. (US 3,710,437) and Ferguson et al. (US 7,119,149).
Regarding claim 1, Jaensch teaches an electrical insulation system for an electric motor made by a process, the system comprising:
a conductor with wires 3 wound in a slot 2 of a stator lamination stack 1,
an encapsulation material surrounding the wires in the slot (i.e., foamable or swellable resin coating on fibers 12 which are placed in slots in spaces surrounding wires 3 and heated; p.4:26-30; p.5:28-31; Fig.3);
a carrier including prepreg fibers (coated threads) 12 arranged between neighboring wires 3 (p.4:23-26; p.5:22-31);
the encapsulation material including a cured resin (i.e., spool of coated threads comprising foamable, swellable or self-adhesive substances are impregnated with resin; p.5:33-p.6:10) mechanically fixing individual wires 3 and prepreg fibers 12 apart from one another (i.e., implied from arrangement of wires 3 and prepreg fibers 12 in Fig.3 and because resin coating creates sufficient bonding of the coil through heat treatment; p.5:28-31);
the process 1 comprising:
…fibers (threads) containing an impregnating resin (p.5:33-p.6:10)…. and particles configured to increase in volume during curing (i.e., fibers 12 coated with synthetic resin coating substances including foamable or swellable substance; p.5:26-28)…whereby the fibers are pre-impregnated with the resin…and the particles (inherent to coating) ,wherein, before winding, the pre-impregnated fibers 12 carry the uncured resin…with the volume-increasing particles… (i.e., initially resin is not cured since it is subject to further heat treatment to bond coil assembly, p.5:28-31)…,
winding wires 3 and pre-impregnated fibers 12 into a slot of a laminated core of a stator, wherein the pre-impregnated fibers are arranged between neighboring wires (i.e., coils containing threads arranged in the interstices between the insulated round wires; p.4:21-28; Fig.3);
wherein there is no dip impregnation of the wound stator core (the only immersion impregnation disclosed is for the spool of coated threads, rovings or tapes per p.6:5-10, not the wound stator core); and
heating the laminated core after winding (heat treatment to bond coil assembly, p.5:28-31) to expand the particles in the pre-impregnated resin with an increase in volume… and thereby increase the volume of the not yet cured impregnating resin…without creating open pores;
melting the…impregnating resin to provide homogenous distribution of the impregnating resin throughout the slot, and thereby cure the impregnated winding wire carrier insulation (i.e., resin is impregnated and cured; p.5:33-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jaensch does not specifically teach the process of “dip impregnating fibers by drawing the fibers through a dip bath which contains [the] impregnating resin”. Further, Jaensch’s uncured resin in the fibers 12 (i.e., the resin impregnating spool with coated threads per p.5:28-p.6:10) is not in a B-stage, does not have a filler, the substance’s particles do not make up “between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing” and during the subsequent heating and curing process does not increase in volume “by a factor of at least two.”
But, the first difference is a product-by-process feature that is not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim. In this case, Jaensch’s’ fibers 12 are coated with substances including foamable or swellable substance (p.5:26-28).Further, the spool of coated threads, rovings or tapes is subsequently immersed in a bath of hardenable impregnating resin (p.5:33-p.6:10). Thus, the fibers are coated with both a foamable or swellable substance and an impregnating resin. The method of dip impregnating in a bath containing these elements does not result in a different structure.
Regarding the first two substantive differences, Kipple teaches a resinous material used for insulating winding wires 22, 24 of a slotted core comprising B-stage resin only partially cured or advanced to a B-stage so that the resin particles will fuse, flow together and form a bond (c.3:6-11). In particular, Kipple teaches a preferred thermosettable resin comprising DGEBA (Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether) epoxy resins with a silica filler (c.3:17-20).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Jaensch’s uncured resin in the fibers in a B-stage and filled with a filler since Kipple teaches a B-stage resin with a filler would have allowed the resin particles to have fused, flowed together and formed a bond.
Regarding the third and fourth differences, Ferguson teaches a thermosettable, high expansion two-component structural foam based on epoxy resin that expands to about twice its original volume using volume-increasing particles in the form of expandable thermoplastic resin microspheres, e.g., EXPANCEL® microspheres, as the blowing agent (abstract; c.5:10-15; c.6:4-42). EXPANCEL® microspheres are the same microspheres disclosed by the specification, p.9. Ferguson’s epoxy resin contains a filler such as a hollow glass microsphere (c.1:21-41) or an organic or inorganic filler (c.10:12-28). The weight range of Ferguson’s expandable microspheres (i.e., combined high-temperature and low-temperature blowing agents) is from 1 to about 15 wt% (c.12:11-12). This encompasses the same range of 1-10 wt% for the volume-increasing particles disclosed in the specification p.9. Ferguson’s foam system fills hollow structural members as an alternative to metal reinforcement, enables designers to reduce weight of structural members while maintaining stiffness and structural strength and provides a cured material having exceptionally good compression strength and modulus essentially free of large voids (abstract; c.1:5-26).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to further modify Jaensch and Kipple and provide a resin with particles between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing that increase in volume by a factor of two without creating open pores since Ferguson’s foam system would have reduced weight while maintaining stiffness and structural strength and provided a cured material having exceptionally good compression strength and modulus essentially free of large voids.
Regarding claim 8, Ferguson’s volume-increasing particles comprise EXPANCEL® microspheres which are gas-filled.
Regarding claim 9, Ferguson teaches additives and optional components (c.10:12-28 & c.10:64-68).
Regarding claim 10, Kipple’s resin comprises an epoxy resin (c.3:17-20). Similarly, Ferguson’s foam comprises epoxy resin (abstract).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaensch, Kipple & Ferguson as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bruce et al. (US Pat.Pub. 2014/ 0342165).
Jaensch, Kipple & Ferguson substantially teach the invention but do not further teach the one or more fillers comprise mica particles (claims 4 & 14), aluminum oxide particles (claim 5 & 15) or boron nitride particles (claims 6 & 16).
But, Bruce teaches an electrical apparatus nano-hybrid matrix encapsulation comprising a carrier medium including inorganic filler material such as refractory ceramic materials such as mica or alumina suspended therein, to increase thermal conductivity and resistance to mechanical breakdown (¶[0017]-¶[0018]). Bruce also teaches addition of fibers increases the mechanical strength of the resultant composition (¶[0019]). Finally, regarding boron nitride, although Bruce does not explicitly teach boron nitride, Bruce’s broad teaching of refractory ceramic particles (¶[0017]) implicitly includes species such as boron nitride, since boron nitride is a well-known refractory material. For instance, Rickborn et al. (US 4,686,116), c.3:32-44, lists boron nitride as a non-oxide ceramic refractory material.
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to further modify the resin of Jaensch Kipple & Ferguson with fillers such as mica particles, aluminum oxide particles or boron nitride particles since Bruce teaches these filler materials would have increased thermal conductivity, resistance to mechanical breakdown and mechanical strength of the carrier medium.
Claims 1, 4 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaensch in view of Walsh et al. (US 5,609,806) and Saito et al. (US 8,519,049). As noted in the preceding rejection of claim 1, Jaensch does not specifically teach the process of “dip impregnating fibers by drawing the fibers through a dip bath which contains [the] impregnating resin”. Further, Jaensch’s uncured resin in the fibers 12 (e.g., the foamable, swellable or self-adhesive substances or synthetic resin coating, per p.5:28-31) is not in a B-stage, does not have a filler, the substance’s particles do not make up “between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing” and during the subsequent heating and curing process does not increase in volume “by a factor of at least two.”
But, the first difference is a product-by-process feature that is not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim. In this case, Jaensch’s’ fibers 12 are coated with substances including foamable or swellable substance (p.5:26-28). Further, the spool of coated threads, rovings or tapes is subsequently immersed in a bath of hardenable impregnating resin (p.5:33-p.6:10). Thus, the fibers are coated with both a foamable or swellable substance and an impregnating resin. The method of dip impregnating in a bath containing these elements does not result in a different structure.
Regarding the first substantive difference, Walsh teaches pre-impregnated reinforcing fiber (i.e., “prepreg”) in the B-stage which retains chemical reactive sites which provide improved bonding between the prepreg material and other resinous materials (c.2:24-29; c.13:27-36).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Jaensch’s
pre-impregnated resin in a B-stage since Walsh teaches prepreg in the B-stage would have provided improved bonding between the prepreg material and other resinous materials.
Regarding the remaining differences, Saito teaches a curable resin composition usable as a potting material (c.6:23-30) comprising reactive organic polymers and thermally expandable hollow spheres as essential components (c.21:65-c.22:6). Saito’s curable resin composition comprises a filler for reinforcement (c.18:31; c.19:9-10). The curable composition contains 0.01 parts by weight or more to less than 20 parts by weight of the thermally expandable hollow spheres with respect to a total of 100 parts by weight of the reactive organic polymers (c.22:21-33; c.39:62-c.40:35). Further, the volume of Saito’s thermally expandable hollow spheres expands by virtue of heating “to be many times as large as that in an initial state” (c.22:7-17). For context regarding this statement, note that Saito c.23:38-44 incorporates by reference, among others, Melber et al. (US 4,722,943) as an example of the hollow spheres employed. Melber discloses microspheres which expand in diameter by a factor of 5 to 10 times (c.5:46-48), which corresponds to an increase in volume by a factor of 125 to 1000. Melber also teaches EXPANCEL® polyvinylidene chloride microspheres (c.4:61-68). Therefore, since Saito’s teaching that the curable composition contains 0.01-20 parts by weight of thermally expandable hollow spheres encompasses the range of 1-10% by weight described in the specification p.9, and since they comprise the same EXPANCEL® microspheres disclosed in the specification p.9 which furthermore expand in volume by a factor of 125 to 1000 per Melber, this implies Saito’s curable composition increases in volume by a factor of at least two. Saito’s curable composition provides improved weather resistance, durability, excellent sealing and fire resistance (c.3:32-44).
Thus, it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date to configure the resin of Jaensch and Walsh with a filler and a resin with particles between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing that increase in volume by a factor of two without creating open pores since Saito teaches a filler would have provide reinforcement to the curable resin and the thermally expandable hollow spheres, e.g., EXPANCEL microspheres, would have provided the curable resin composition with improved weather resistance, durability, excellent sealing and fire resistance.
Regarding claim 4, Saito’s filler comprises mica particles, e.g., mica (c.19:14).
Regarding claim 8, Saito’s thermo-expandable hollow spheres comprise a volatile substance which is in a gas state at a temperature lower than the softening point of the resin (c.22:7-11). Similarly, by way of reference to Melber, Saito teaches EXPANCEL® polyvinylidene chloride microspheres with an inclusion of iso-butane as the blowing agent (Melber c.4:61-68; c.5:16-21).
Regarding claim 9, Saito’s resin potting compound may include additives such as a curing catalyst, an adhesion imparting agent, a physical property adjuster, etc. (c.21:55-64).
Regarding claim 10, Saito’s resin potting compound composition comprises an epoxy group (abstract).
Claims 1, 4, 8, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedelmahr et al. (DE 10323099) in view of Anderton et al. (US Pat.Pub.2012/0169172) & Saito.
Regarding apparatus claim 1, Dedelmahr teaches an electrical insulation system made by a process, the system comprising:
a conductor (winding) 1 with wires (individual conductors) 2 (abstract; ¶[0023]- ¶[0024]);
an encapsulation material surrounding the wires 2 (i.e., resin of prepreg 4 flows in cavities of winding gaps 5 and fills them completely after heating; ¶[0030]);
a carrier (prepreg sheet carrier) 4 including prepreg fibers (e.g., felt or nonwoven; abstract; ¶[0025]; claim 2) arranged between neighboring wires 2;
the encapsulation material including a cured (B-stage) resin (resin of prepreg 4) mechanically fixing individual wires 2 and prepreg fibers (of carrier 4) apart from one another (inherent, since after heating and curing, all the winding gaps 5 are filled so that a material and positive connection between fibers of carrier/prepreg 4 and wire conductors 2 is provided; ¶[0031]; Fig.3),
the process 2 comprising:
…an impregnating (B-stage) resin (resin of prepreg 4)..whereby the fibers are pre-impregnated with the (B-stage) resin…wherein, before winding, the pre-impregnated fibers carry the uncured resin in a B-stage (i.e., prepreg comprises resin initially in the B-stage; ¶[0027]; claim 3)…,
winding wires 2 and pre-impregnated fibers (in prepreg layer 4)…wherein the pre-impregnated fibers are arranged between neighboring wires (Figs.1-2);
wherein there is no dip impregnation…;
and heating the laminated core after winding…; melting the B-stage impregnating resin to provide homogenous distribution of the impregnating resin, and thereby cure the impregnated winding wire carrier insulation (i.e., prepreg 4 becomes liquid and penetrates winding gaps 5 during heating; “[u]pon heating, B-stage resin of prepreg 4 [converts] into the liquid A state…[and] flows into the remaining cavities of the winding gaps 5 and fills them completely after the heating process. Finally, the resin becomes the prepre[g] 4 in the C-state, i.e., the fully cured state in which all joints of the resin are three-dimensionally cross-linked transferred. The resin has good adhesion in the C state”; abstract; ¶[0030]; Fig.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
661
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dedelmahr does not teach the process of “dip impregnating fibers by drawing the fibers through a dip bath which contains [the] impregnating resin”. Further, Dedelmahr does not teach
the winding 1 is wound in a slot of a stator lamination stack, or that the B-stage resin in the fibers comprises a filler and particles that make up between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing that are configured to increase in volume by a factor of at least two during heating of the core without creating open pores.
But, the first difference is a product-by-process feature that is not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim. In this case, Dedelmahr’s prepreg 4 comprises B-stage synthetic resins such as thermosetting resins (¶[0011]). The method of dip impregnating the fibers in a bath of B-stage resin does not result in a different structure.
Regarding the first substantive difference, Anderton teaches a method for manufacturing a stator bar of an electric machine (inclusive of electric motors) comprising wires 3 insulated with insulation between each other (not numbered; ¶[0019]; Figs.1-2) and wound together with an expandable tape 5 in a slot 11 of a laminated core 10 of a stator (¶[0003]; claim 1; Figs.3-4). The expandable tape 5 comprises, e.g., glass fibres that carries a B stage resin, such as an epoxy resin 7 and a filler 8 having expandable properties, e.g., EXPANCEL® or ADVANCELL® ((¶[0028]-¶[0030]). Heating comprises the final thermal treatments of the stator core to expand expandable tape 5 to completely fill all voids and gaps (¶[0039] & ¶[0041]). Anderton thus provides stator windings of a stator of the electric machine (abstract; ¶[0002]; claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to wind Dedelmahr’s winding in a slot of a laminated core of a stator of an electric motor since Anderton teaches this would have provided stator windings of a stator of an electric machine.
Regarding the remaining differences, Saito teaches a curable resin composition usable as a potting material (c.6:23-30) comprising reactive organic polymers and thermally expandable hollow spheres as essential components (c.21:65-c.22:6). Saito’s curable resin composition comprises a filler for reinforcement (c.18:31; c.19:9-10). The curable composition contains 0.01 parts by weight or more to less than 20 parts by weight of the thermally expandable hollow spheres with respect to a total of 100 parts by weight of the reactive organic polymers (c.22:21-33; c.39:62-c.40:35). Further, the volume of Saito’s thermally expandable hollow spheres expands by virtue of heating “to be many times as large as that in an initial state” (c.22:7-17). For context regarding this statement, note that Saito c.23:38-44 incorporates by reference, among others, Melber et al. (US 4,722,943) as an example of the hollow spheres employed. Melber discloses microspheres which expand in diameter by a factor of 5 to 10 times (c.5:46-48), which corresponds to an increase in volume by a factor of 125 to 1000. Melber also teaches EXPANCEL® polyvinylidene chloride microspheres (c.4:61-68). Therefore, since Saito’s teaching that the curable composition contains 0.01-20 parts by weight of thermally expandable hollow spheres encompasses the range of 1-10% by weight described in the specification p.9, and since they comprise the same EXPANCEL® microspheres disclosed in the specification p.9 which furthermore expand in volume by a factor of 125 to 1000 per Melber, this implies Saito’s curable composition increases in volume by a factor of at least two. Saito’s curable composition provides improved weather resistance, durability, excellent sealing and fire resistance (c.3:32-44).
Thus, it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date to configure the resin of Dedelmahr and Anderton with a filler and particles between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing that increase in volume by a factor of at least two during heating of the core without creating open pores since Saito teaches a filler would have provided reinforcement to the curable resin and the thermally expandable hollow spheres, e.g., EXPANCEL microspheres, would have provided the curable resin composition with improved weather resistance, durability, excellent sealing and fire resistance.
Regarding claim 4, Saito’s filler comprise mica particles, e.g., mica (c.19:14).
Regarding claim 8, Saito’s thermo-expandable hollow spheres comprise a volatile substance which is in a gas state at a temperature lower than the softening point of the resin (c.22:7-11). Similarly, by way of reference to Melber, Saito teaches EXPANCEL® polyvinylidene chloride microspheres with an inclusion of iso-butane as the blowing agent (Melber c.4:61-68; c.5:16-21).
Regarding claim 10, Dedelmahr teaches the resin comprises epoxy (¶[0011]). Similarly, Saito’s resin potting compound composition comprises an epoxy group (abstract).
Claims 12, 14-16 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedelmahr et al. (DE 10323099) in view of Andersson et al. (US 4,362,778), Saito and Anderton.
Regarding method claim 12, Dedelmahr teaches a method for producing an electrical insulation system, the method comprising:
winding wires 2 and pre-impregnated fibers (e.g., felt or nonwoven B-stage carrier/prepreg 4; ¶[0025]; claim 2) arranged between neighboring wires (Fig.3);
wherein there is no dip impregnation of the wound stator core (this follows since Dedelmahr does not teach a wound stator core); and
heating the winding wire…., melting the B-stage impregnating resin providing homogeneous distribution of the impregnating resin (i.e., “[u]pon heating, B-stage resin of prepreg 4 [converts] into the liquid A state…[and] flows into the remaining cavities of the winding gaps 5 and fills them completely after the heating process. Finally, the resin becomes the prepre[g] 4 in the C-state, i.e., the fully cured state in which all joints of the resin are three-dimensionally cross-linked transferred. The resin has good adhesion in the C state”; ¶[0030]; Fig.4), and thereby curing the impregnated winding wire carrier insulation” (i.e., B-stage resin is fully cured to C-state; ¶[0030]).
Dedelmahr does not teach the fibers of carrier/prepreg 4 are “dip impregnat[ed]” with the liquid B-stage resin “by drawing fibers through a dip bath which contains [the] impregnating resin”. Also, Dedelmahr does not teach the B-stage liquid resin includes “one or more fillers, and particles configured to increase in volume during curing and the particles make up between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing...” and does not teach winding the wires and pre-impregnated fibers “into a slot of a laminated core of a stator” and “heating the laminated core such that the particles in the impregnating resin expand with an increase in volume and thereby increase the volume of the not yet cured impregnating resin by a factor of two without creating open pores”.
But, regarding the step of dip impregnation, Andersson teaches a foam composite material impregnated with a B-stage resin containing expanded thermoplastic particles such as microspheres (abstract; c.1:18-22). A fiber web is impregnated with the mixture of resin and microspheres in a conventional way, e.g. by immersing the web in a bath of the mixture (c.1:25-30; c.4:32-36 & 67-68).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to dip impregnate Dedelmahr’s prepreg fibers by drawing them through a dip bath containing the B-stage resin since Andersson teaches dip impregnation is a conventional way of impregnating a mixture of resin and microspheres into carrier materials.
Regarding the differences of the impregnating resin, Saito teaches a curable resin composition usable as a potting material (c.6:23-30) comprising reactive organic polymers and thermally expandable hollow spheres as essential components (c.21:65-c.22:6). Saito’s curable resin composition comprises a filler for reinforcement (c.18:31; c.19:9-10). The curable composition contains 0.01 parts by weight or more to less than 20 parts by weight of the thermally expandable hollow spheres with respect to a total of 100 parts by weight of the reactive organic polymers (c.22:21-33; c.39:62-c.40:35). Further, the volume of Saito’s thermally expandable hollow spheres expands by virtue of heating “to be many times as large as that in an initial state” (c.22:7-17). For context regarding this statement, note that Saito c.23:38-44 incorporates by reference, among others, Melber et al. (US 4,722,943) as an example of the hollow spheres employed. Melber discloses microspheres which expand in diameter by a factor of 5 to 10 times (c.5:46-48), which corresponds to an increase in volume by a factor of 125 to 1000. Melber also teaches EXPANCEL® polyvinylidene chloride microspheres (c.4:61-68). Therefore, since Saito’s teaching that the curable composition contains 0.01-20 parts by weight of thermally expandable hollow spheres encompasses the range of 2-6% by weight, and since they comprise the same EXPANCEL® microspheres disclosed in the specification p.9 which furthermore expand in volume by a factor of 125 to 1000 per Melber, this implies Saito’s curable composition increases in volume by a factor of at least two. Saito’s curable composition provides improved weather resistance, durability, excellent sealing and fire resistance (c.3:32-44).
Thus, it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date to provide the B-stage resin of Dedelmahr & Andersson with one or more fillers and with particles making up between 2% and 6% by weight of the impregnating resin before curing that increase in volume by a factor of two without creating open pores since Saito teaches one or more fillers would have provided reinforcement to the curable resin and the thermally expandable hollow spheres, e.g., EXPANCEL® microspheres, would have provided the curable resin composition with improved weather resistance, durability, excellent sealing and fire resistance.
Finally, regarding the steps of winding the wires and pre-impregnated fibers into a slot of a laminated core of a stator and heating the laminated core, Anderton teaches a method for manufacturing a stator bar of an electric machine (inclusive of electric motors) comprising wires 3 insulated with insulation between each other (not numbered; ¶[0019]; Figs.1-2) and wound together with an expandable tape 5 in a slot 11 of a laminated core 10 of a stator (¶[0003]; claim 1; Figs.3-4). The expandable tape 5 comprises, e.g., glass fibres that carries a B stage resin, such as an epoxy resin 7 and a filler 8 having expandable properties, e.g., EXPANCEL® or ADVANCELL® ((¶[0028]-¶[0030]). Heating comprises the final thermal treatments of the stator core to expand expandable tape 5 to completely fill all voids and gaps (¶[0039] & ¶[0041]). Anderton thus provides stator windings of a stator of the electric machine (abstract; ¶[0002]; claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to wind the winding of Dedelmahr, Andersson & Saito in a slot of a laminated core of a stator of an electric motor since Anderton teaches this would have provided stator windings of a stator of an electric machine.
Regarding claim 14, Saito teaches one or more mice particle fillers, e.g., mica (c.19:14).
Regarding claims 15&16, Anderton’s resin fillers 9 comprise aluminum oxide or boron nitride particles (¶[0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Saito’s thermo-expandable hollow spheres comprise a volatile substance which is in a gas state at a temperature lower than the softening point of the resin (c.22:7-11). Similarly, by way of reference to Melber, Saito teaches EXPANCEL® polyvinylidene chloride microspheres with an inclusion of iso-butane as the blowing agent (Melber c.4:61-68; c.5:16-21). Similarly, Anderton’s resin filler 8 comprises EXPANCEL® volume-increasing particles (¶[0029]).
Regarding claim 19, Saito’s resin potting compound may include additives such as a curing catalyst, an adhesion imparting agent, a physical property adjuster, etc. (c.21:55-64). Similarly, Anderton’s resin comprises additives, e.g.,, fillers 9 for thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 20, Dedelmahr teaches the resin comprises epoxy (¶[0011]). Similarly, Saito’s resin potting compound composition comprises an epoxy group (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not wholly persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of apparatus claim 1 over Jaensch, Kipple & Ferguson, Applicant argues the combination does not teach the uncured resin is applied to form the prepreg fibers using an immersion impregnation process whereby the volume-increasing particles increase a volume of the resin by a factor of at least two (Response, p.5). Applicant argues this on the basis of Jaensch allegedly teaching distinct embodiments that “must be accessed separately”--- i.e., a “first teaching” where a wound core is dip impregnated (p.3:8-31) and a “second teaching” that does not have subsequent impregnation of the core, but instead bonds the coil assembly through heat treatment of the disclosed synthetic resin coating on the filaments (p.5:1-28 & Response pp.6-7).
However, it is noted Jaensch’s alleged “first teaching” on p.3:11-22 is actually a description of prior art DE-AS1538863, which teaches winding of the coils and “subsequent impregnation”. Jaensch goes on to note that complete filling of the cavities within the windings is difficult to achieve (p.3:33-p.4:11). Given Jaensch’s explicit notation of deficiencies related to prior art techniques such as disclosed in DE-AS 1528863, Applicant’s suggestion that Jaensch teaches or incorporates this is not persuasive. Further, it is not clear that the generic description of “subsequent impregnation” in the prior art DE-AS1538863 necessarily refers to “dip bath impregnation.”
As to the dip immersion process, per se, Jaensch teaches dip (immersion) impregnation of the spool of coated threads, rovings or tapes in a impregnating bath of resin (p.5:33-p.6:10). This refers to the coating of foamable, swellable substances described at p.5:26-28. Insofar as it applies to apparatus claim 1, the claimed process of dip impregnation is not given patentable weight since it does not result in a structural difference. After Jaensch’s dip impregnation of the spool, the coated threads would comprise both the impregnating resin and the foamable, swellable substances corresponding to the claimed volume increasing particles. Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the rejection is based on combinations of references, so even if arguendo Jaensch’s coating is not construed as comprising both a synthetic resin and a foamable and/or swellable substance, Ferguson teaches a thermosettable, high expansion two-component structural foam based on a synthetic epoxy resin that contains EXPANCEL® microspheres that expand to about twice its original volume (abstract; c.5:10-15; c.6:4-42). One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Kipple and Ferguson are not directed to a dip-bath impregnation of fibers (Response, p.9). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Jaensch teaches dip (immersion) impregnation of the spool of coated threads, rovings or tapes in the impregnating resin (p.6:5-10). Kipple meanwhile is applied for a teaches a resinous material used for insulating winding wires 22, 24 of a slotted core comprising B-stage resin only partially cured or advanced to a B-stage so that the resin particles will fuse, flow together and form a bond (c.3:6-11). Ferguson teaches a thermosettable, high expansion two-component structural foam based on epoxy resin that expands to about twice its original volume using volume-increasing particles in the form of expandable thermoplastic resin microspheres, e.g., EXPANCEL® microspheres, as the blowing agent (abstract; c.5:10-15; c.6:4-42). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Kipple’s B-stage resin with a filler would have allowed Jaensch’s synthetic resin to have fused, flowed together and formed a bond. Ferguson’s foam system of EXPANCEL® microspheres would have reduced weight while maintaining stiffness and structural strength and provided a cured material having exceptionally good compression strength and modulus essentially free of large voids.
Conclusion
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 on 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 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2 Idem.
Prosecution Insights