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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-24, 26-32, 34-50 and 70 are pending. Claims 4, 6, 10-18, 21, 22, 30, and 46-48 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34-45, 49, 50 and 70 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction was previously finalized and Applicant’s arguments with respect to the withdrawn claims are moot. The claims remain withdrawn for the reasons as previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
Initially, it is noted that Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objection to the specification and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 19.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a method of controlling in-line coating of insulation components in a molten process while using a crosslinking composition in which control of the crosslinking reaction is critical while applying the coating through processing equipment such as cross-head die extruders was not taught or suggested by the prior art. However, the Examiner notes that many of the limitations which Applicant suggests are not taught by the prior art are not being claimed. In particular, the process of claim 1 does not recite controlling the crosslinking reaction or use of a cross-head die extruder. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach these features are moot.
The Applicant argues that there would be no information provided in the combination of references on how to prepare coatings on insulative components by a heat process or how to crosslink the polymer to attain proper and consistent coating properties. However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that Burgoyne teaches a heat processing, an application step and a crosslinking step and Das makes obvious application by heat molding which would be providing a composition in a molten form. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the combination of references teach all the claimed features.
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite improved properties based on the method and that this would overcome the rejections of claims 1 and the dependent claims. However, the Examiner contends that these would be inherent given the process of Burgoyne in view of Das. Therefore, the rejections of record are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34 and 37-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoyne in view of Das et al. (WO 2020/056057).
I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34, 37 and 39-45, Burgoyne teaches a process of coating an insulation component (abstract) comprising: preparing an exterior surface of the insulation component to enhance bonding by chemically modifying the exterior surface using a coupling agent (page 9, lines 54-57); providing a composition comprising a crosslinking aromatic polymer (page 10, lines 8-11), which can be self-crosslinking and comprising functional groups (page 8, lines 51-55) and can be a polyarylene ether (page 10, lines 8-11), directly to the exterior surface of the insulation component (page 16, lines 41-45); followed by heat processing and crosslinking of the aromatic polymer to provide a coated insulation component (page 16, lines 45-52). Burgoyne also teaches the curing occurring in an oven after coating for a controlled amount of time (page 16, lines 50-52). Burgoyne fails to teach the composition comprising a polyarylene as claimed in claim 9, the inclusion of a crosslinking compound as claimed in claims 1, 20 and 23-27 in an amount of 1-24%, the inclusion of a lithium acetate additive, additional additives as claimed in claim 31, and extruding the composition in a molten form for applying. Burgoyne further fails to teach the coating after crosslinking providing a property as claimed.
First, Das teaches a similar composition (abstract) comprising a crosslinking polymer (abstract), such as a polyarylene (0056), preferably polyetherketone (0108), as well as a crosslinking compound, such as
PNG
media_image1.png
392
159
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(0049) where A can have a molecular weight of 2000-7000 (0054), and the crosslinking compound can also be the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
106
139
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(0053). Das also teaches the crosslinking compound present in about 1-50 wt% (0156) and a weight ratio of the polymer to the crosslinking compound being from 1:1 to 100:1 (0155); the inclusion of lithium acetate in the composition as a cure inhibitor (0062) in an amount of 0.2-2 wt% (0157), and additional additives (0059), such as carbon fibers (0059) in an amount of 0.5-65 wt% (0060). Finally, Das teaches that the composition can be extruded in a molten form as a coating while heating (0164, note that heat molding by definition involves melting the polymer and processing in a molten form). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne’s process by substituting Das’ composition comprising a crosslinkable polymer, the crosslinking compound, lithium acetate and additional additives for Burgoyne’s crosslinking polymer. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Das teaches that this is an easy-to-process composition (0147) that provides improved properties and control of cross-link density for differing end applications (0200). Additionally, it would have been obvious to substitute Das’ extrusion process for Burgoyne’s generic coating. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one coating method for another with a reasonable expectation of success (note that Burgoyne and Das are teaching similar compositions) and the predictable result of providing an insulating coating.
Finally, Burgoyne in view of Das teach an identical process as claimed using identical aromatic polymers which after crosslinking would inherently yield a coating with improved wear resistance, insulation resistance and dielectric breakdown resistance compared to a component coated with a similar composition that is not crosslinked.
II. Regarding claim 5, Burgoyne in view of Das teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach at least partially crosslinking during the coating step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne in view of Das’ process by additionally starting the heating/crosslinking during the coating step. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for a more efficient process.
III. Regarding claim 38, Burgoyne in view of Das teach all the limitations of claim 37 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach the oven is a convection oven. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that convection ovens are conventional and well known for use as heating instruments in a lab/commercial setting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne in view of Das’ process by substituting a convection oven for Burgoyne in view of Das’ generic oven. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (as the substitution of one type of heating oven for another would have yielded the same results with respect to heating), and the predictable result of crosslinking and curing the aromatic polymer.
2. Claim(s) 35, 36, 50 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoyne in view of Das as applied to claims 1 and 34 above, and further in view of Ajbani et al. (WO 2009/128825).
I. Regarding claims 35 and 36, Burgoyne in view of Das teach all the limitations of claim 34 including extruding the composition (see above), but fail to teach the composition is extruded through a cross-head die and/or the extruder comprises a twin-screw extruder. However, Ajbani teaches that polyarylene ethers (abstract), such as polyetherketones (abstract), can be extruded using a cross-head die (page 14, lines 18-28) or twin-screw extruder (page 23, line 38) for providing insulating coatings (page 14, line 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne in view of Das’ process by substituting a cross-head die and twin-screw extruder as disclosed by Ajbani for Burgoyne in view of Das’s extruder. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (given the similarity between the compositions and the intended uses), and the predictable result of providing an insulating coating.
II. Regarding claim 50, Burgoyne in view of Das teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the insulation component is a wire. However, Ajbani teaches that polyarylene ethers (abstract), such as polyetherketones (abstract), can be extruded using a cross-head die (page 14, lines 18-28) or twin-screw extruder (page 23, line 38) for providing insulating coatings (page 14, line 22) on wire (page 14, lines 18-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne in view of Das’ process by substituting a wire as the substrate in place of Burgoyne in view of Das’ substrate. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (given the similarity between the compositions and the intended uses), and the predictable result of providing an insulated coated wire.
III. Regarding claim 70, Burgoyne teaches a process of coating an insulation component (abstract) comprising: preparing an exterior surface of the insulation component to enhance bonding by chemically modifying the exterior surface using a coupling agent (page 9, lines 54-57); providing a composition comprising a crosslinking aromatic polymer (page 10, lines 8-11), which can be self-crosslinking and comprising functional groups (page 8, lines 51-55) and can be a polyarylene ether (page 10, lines 8-11), directly to the exterior surface of the insulation component (page 16, lines 41-45); followed by heat processing and crosslinking of the aromatic polymer to provide a coated insulation component (page 16, lines 45-52). Burgoyne also teaches the curing occurring in an oven after coating for a controlled amount of time (page 16, lines 50-52). Burgoyne fails to teach the inclusion of a crosslinking compound in an amount of 1-24%, and applying the composition in a molten form and applied to a component as claimed.
First, Das teaches a similar composition (abstract) comprising a crosslinking polymer (abstract), such as a polyarylene (0056), preferably polyetherketone (0108), as well as a crosslinking compound, such as
PNG
media_image1.png
392
159
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(0049) where A can have a molecular weight of 2000-7000 (0054), and the crosslinking compound can also be the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
106
139
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(0053). Das also teaches the crosslinking compound present in about 1-50 wt% (0156) and a weight ratio of the polymer to the crosslinking compound being from 1:1 to 100:1 (0155); the inclusion of lithium acetate in the composition as a cure inhibitor (0062) in an amount of 0.2-2 wt% (0157), and additional additives (0059), such as carbon fibers (0059) in an amount of 0.5-65 wt% (0060). Finally, Das teaches that the composition can be extruded in a molten form as a coating while heating (0164, note that heat molding by definition involves melting the polymer and processing in a molten form). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne’s process by substituting Das’ composition comprising a crosslinkable polymer, the crosslinking compound, lithium acetate and additional additives for Burgoyne’s crosslinking polymer. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Das teaches that this is an easy-to-process composition (0147) that provides improved properties and control of cross-link density for differing end applications (0200). Additionally, it would have been obvious to substitute Das’ melt extrusion process for Burgoyne’s generic coating. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one coating method for another with a reasonable expectation of success (note that Burgoyne and Das are teaching similar compositions) and the predictable result of providing an insulating coating.
Finally, Ajbani teaches that polyarylene ethers (abstract), such as polyetherketones (abstract), can be extruded using a cross-head die (page 14, lines 18-28) or twin-screw extruder (page 23, line 38) for providing insulating coatings (page 14, line 22) on wire (page 14, lines 18-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne in view of Das’ process by substituting a wire as the substrate in place of Burgoyne in view of Das’ substrate. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (given the similarity between the compositions and the intended uses), and the predictable result of providing an insulated coated wire.
3. Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoyne in view of Das as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Keiser (U.S. Pat. No. 6521312).
Regarding claim 49, Burgoyne in view of Das teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach application of a release agent to the coating. However, Keiser teaches applying a release agent to a formed coating (column 3, lines 30-52), where the coating can be an extrusion coating (column 3, lines 30-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgoyne in view of Das’ process by applying a release agent to the coating as disclosed by Keiser. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would prevent the coating from sticking together if it is rolled up on a roller for storage during a continuous process.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-24, 26-32, 34-50 and 70 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, 10-18, 21, 22, 30, and 46-48 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34-45, 49, 50 and 70 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 18, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717