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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/25
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “….one or more spacer tapes of electrically insulating material around said conductor element along said main extension direction each spacer tape having a plurality of spacer portions…” is vague and indefinite.
Each spacer tape having a plurality of spacer portions implies that the applicant is using multiple spacers. This would be a contradiction if only one spacer is chosen as disclosed in line four of claim 11. Is the applicant claiming multiple spacers or just one? Also line 18 of claim 11, implies that multiple spacers are being used. Claims 12-20 are rejected under the same premises as claim 11.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations “….wherein the one or more spacer tapes comprises a plurality of spacer tapes.…” is vague and indefinite. The examiner is unclear how the spacer tape comprises a plurality of spacer tapes. The specifications
disclose how the conductor can have a plurality of tapes wrapped around the conductor or the spacer tape have various portions. Where in the specification/drawings discloses a spacer tape comprising more tape?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1 Claims 11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tillner (US 2009/0078448).
Regarding claim 11, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses a conductor element (1) extending longitudinally along a main extension direction and one or more spacer tapes (2/9) of electrically insulating material around said conductor element along said main extension direction (see figure 1), each spacer tape having a plurality of spacer portions at corresponding lateral surfaces of said conductor element (see figure 6 and para 0020 disclosing wherein the spacer is wrapped around the conductor element 1), said spacer portions being spaced one from another along the lateral surfaces of said conductor element (see figure 6), wherein said conductor structure is intended to form an electric winding (see para 0015), said electric winding extending axially along a winding direction and having a plurality of turns arranged around said winding direction (see figure 1), wherein each turn of said electric winding is formed by a corresponding longitudinal portion of said conductor element (see figure 1) ,wherein spacer portions of each spacer tape are interposed between adjacent turns of said electric winding at opposite sides of said turns (see figures 1/6), wherein the spacer portions are respectively positioned spaced one from another to define an empty space to form a radial channel of the electric winding (see figure 6), wherein the radial channel is configured for a passage of an electrically insulating medium (see para 0007/0015)
Regarding claim 13, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses a conductor structure.
Regarding claim 14, It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 15, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses wherein each spacer tape is wound around a corresponding longitudinal portion of said conductor element, which is intended to form a turn of said electric winding.
Regarding claim 17, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses wherein the one or more spacer tapes comprises a single spacer tape wound around said conductor element.
Regarding claim 19, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses wherein the spacer portions of each spacer tape are oriented along first and second fixing directions transversal to the main extension direction of said conductor element.
Regarding claim 20, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses wherein the one or more spacer tapes are wound around said conductor element along the entire length of said conductor element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillner (US 2009/0078448) in view of Ikeda et al. (JP 2008228551)(English translation)
Regarding claim 12, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein said spacer tape has a thickness between 0.5 mm and 10 mm.
Ikeda et al. (page 3) discloses wherein said spacer tape has a thickness between 0.5 mm and 10 mm.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein said spacer tape has a thickness between 0.5 mm and 10 mm as taught by Ikeda et al. to the inductive device of Tillner so as to allow for the inductive device to have enough thickness wherein high dielectric strength is provided, ensuring safe operation by preventing short circuits in high-voltage environments.
3 Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillner (US 2009/0078448) in view of Farry.(US 2,310,684)
Regarding claim 16, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor element is a continuously transposed conductor.
Farry.(Col 2, lines 1-55) discloses wherein the conductor element is a continuously transposed conductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the conductor element is a continuously transposed conductor as taught by Farry to the inductive device of Tillner so as to significantly reduces electrical losses thereby by allowing for
improved overall efficiency and performance of the inductive device.
4 Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillner (US 2009/0078448).
Regarding claim 18, Tillner (para 0015-0016/0020 and figures 1/6) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more spacer tapes comprises a plurality of spacer tapes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the one or more spacer tapes comprises a plurality of spacer tapes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Such as to allow for the inductive device to have high dielectric strength; thereby ensuring safe operation by preventing short circuits in high-voltage environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837