DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on June 10th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 10th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 08-227811 A) (hereinafter “Suzuki”), optionally in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0011820 A1) (hereinafter “Yin”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Suzuki teaches a heat-resistant coil used at temperatures of 400 °C or higher, such as for use in nuclear reactor peripheral equipment, high-temperature reactor peripheral equipment, induction heating, among others [0004], wherein the inorganic insulation cable comprises a methyl-phenyl silicone (hybrid organic-inorganic electrical insulation) impregnation comprising a binder and further preferably a filler used at temperatures of 400 °C or higher (i.e. tested for 6 months) and resistant to high temperatures up to and including 600 °C (i.e. tested for 1 week) [0007-0010, 0018, 0033] impregnating/coating a conductive core/conductor comprising a SUS (stainless steel) clad copper wire having a diameter of 0.6 forming a helical coil (inherently around a nucleus) of about 6 mm [0020], providing radius of curvature 5 times greater than the inorganic insulation cable or obviously within or making the claimed range prima facie obvious, wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I. Or, wherein 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). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the event that the inorganic insulation cable is not taught as claimed or the relationship between the radius of curvature and diameter of the inorganic insulation cable : Yin teaches insulated windings/coils resistant to high temperatures useable for motor stators improved over conventional electrical insulation systems that include only a ceramic (inorganic) layer or only a polymer (composite) coating layer by providing a multilayered mixed coating system, wherein the combination of a ceramic coating and a polymer composite coating provides reduced coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch by introducing buffer layers, increased adhesion, thermal stress absorption, and chemical resistance of the winding as well as increased stability, flexibility, mechanical strength during the winding [0029, 0042, 0067], wherein the conductive core (All Figs. [12]) has a ceramic insulation coating thereon (All Figs. [14]) having a thickness of about 0.1 to 10 microns and one or more composite silicone coatings disposed on the ceramic insulation coating (All Figs. [16A]) having a thickness of 0.5 to 100 microns [0048, 0031-0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an inorganic insulation cable as comprising a ceramic insulation covering the conductive core. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to provide reduced coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch by introducing buffer layers, increased adhesion, thermal stress absorption, and chemical resistance of the winding as well as increased stability, flexibility, mechanical strength during the winding.
Further regarding the bending radius of curvature, a 0.6 mm diameter plated/clad-copper wire of Suzuki having Yin’s inorganic coating thickness of 0.1 to 10 microns relation to Yin’s bend radius of 0.5” (12.7 mm) or greater provides a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 5 times the diameter of the inorganic insulation cable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Yin, as applied to claim 1 above, and Jumonji et al. (Super heat resistant ceramic insulated wire) (hereinafter “Jumonji”).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki/Yin teach a winding for high temperature usages such as reactors, the winding comprising a conductive stainless steel clad copper core covered by a ceramic insulator impregnated by a silicone resin coating resistant to high temperatures of 400 °C or higher, such as up to and including 600 °C as recited above.
However, the core comprising a copper-nickel alloy is not taught.
Jumonji teaches a super heat resistant ceramic insulated wire for temperatures above 400 °C, usable with reactors, wherein stainless steel clad copper is too stiff and hard to handle and a bare copper wire too easily diffuses into a covering ceramic layer, wherein plating or cladding with nickel is effective for preventing the diffusion of copper [Introduction & Conclusion, pgs. 557 & 563].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a nickel-copper alloy conductive core/wire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an already heat-resistant silicone polymer coated ceramic insulated core with a known basic structure that prevents diffusion of the copper at higher temperatures.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Jun (Is Silicone a Good Heat Insulator?) (hereinafter “Jun”), and in view of Kameda et al. (JP 2010-177589 A) (hereinafter “Kameda”) and optionally Ueoka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,465,097 B1) (hereinafter “Ueoka”).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the silicone coating is electrically insulating [0013] and comprises drying/curing temperatures of 80 °C and 200 °C [0017], wherein Jun evidences most silicones can handle temperatures between -70 °C and greater than 230 °C, wherein the upper usage temperatures of Suzuki are up to and greater than 400 °C and up to and greater than 600 °C [0033-0034] as recited above.
Although the prior art does not disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Suzuki teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Ueoka teaches winding insulated wire coils, wherein the resin covering coils preferably comprises fillers that allow the resin to have a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible to that of the conductor, of copper, for instance, wherein copper has a known thermal expansion coefficient of 16-16.7x10-6/K and nickel has a known thermal expansion coefficient of 13x10-6/K, such that it would have been obvious to and motivated for the silicone resin of the prior art to be closer to the target values of the conductive wire/core and therefore preferably greater than 5x10-6/K.
However, a thermal conductivity above 1 W/m/°C is not taught:
Kameda teaches an insulated coil for spirally/helically winding, such as for a vehicle reactor, wherein the conductive core is provided with an electrically insulating coating of silicone resin, wherein in order to prevent interfacial fracture due to temperature cycling or mechanical vibration [0014-0016], wherein if the thermal conductivity of a silicone-based resin is less than 0.5 W/m·K, heat generated by the operation of the reactor will not be properly conducted to the outside, wherein the thermal conductivity is preferably 1.0 W/m·K or higher and particularly preferably 1.2 W/m·K from the viewpoint of heat dissipation from the coil [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a thermal conductivity of to the silicone resin within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide effective heat dissipation from the operation of the coil.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0053595 A1) (hereinafter “Elliott”), optionally as evidenced by Wacker Chemical (SILRES REN 80) (hereinafter “Wacker”) OR Evonik (SILIKOPHEN P80/X) (hereinafter “Evonik”) OR optionally in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 08-227811 A) (hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claims 1-2, Elliot teaches a lightweight electromagnetic coil that can withstand harsh environments and high temperatures for an inductor usable in aerospace applications [0001-0002] comprising a bobbin/core (nucleaus) [0028] and a coiled conductor spirally/helically wrapped around the bobbin [0022], wherein the coiled conductor may be any type of conductive metal coated in an amorphous or polycrystalline ceramic inorganic insulation and plated/clad, preferably ceramic coated nickel clad/plated copper [0020-0021] and impregnated during winding, preferably a methyl-phenyl siloxane polymer (silicone) resistant to high temperatures up to and including 400 °C, which is used purely for reference, and the siloxane polymer should be able to withstand any particular temperature [0029-0035, 0038], wherein specific embodiments comprise Silres Ren 80 and Silikophen P80/X [0031], wherein Silres REN80 is resistant to temperatures exceeding 600 °C (which may or may not be due to certain fillers) and wherein Silikophen P80/X is resistant to temperatures up to 650 °C when used with certain fillers and formulations, wherein both can be air-dried, with Silres Ren 80 being dryable at room temperature.
Alternatively, Suzuki teaches a heat-resistant coil used at temperatures of 400 °C or higher, such as for use in nuclear reactor peripheral equipment, high-temperature reactor peripheral equipment, induction heating, among others [0004], wherein the inorganic insulation cable comprises a methyl-phenyl silicone (hybrid organic-inorganic electrical insulation) impregnation of a cable comprising a conductive core, the impregnation comprising a silicone binder and further preferably a filler used at temperatures of 400 °C or higher (i.e. tested for 6 months) and resistant to high temperatures up to and including 600 °C (i.e. tested for 1 week) [0007-0010, 0018, 0033].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the known prior art for successful examples of silicone resins that provide the desired and/or equivalent features for a similar/the same use.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott, optionally in view of Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Jun (Is Silicone a Good Heat Insulator?) (hereinafter “Jun”), and in view of Kameda et al. (JP 2010-177589 A) (hereinafter “Kameda”) and optionally Ueoka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,465,097 B1) (hereinafter “Ueoka”).
Regarding claim 3, Elliott teaches the electrically-insulating silicone resin curing temperatures may be approximately or lower than 250 °C but is not limited thereto wherein lower curing/drying temperatures are desired [0009, 0040], wherein Jun evidences most silicones can handle temperatures between -70 °C and greater than 230 °C, wherein the upper usage temperatures of Elliott (or Elliott/Suzuki) are up to and greater than 400 °C and up to and greater than 600-650 °C as recited above.
Although the prior art does not disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Elliott (or Elliott/Suzuki) teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Ueoka teaches winding insulated wire coils, wherein the resin covering coils preferably comprises fillers that allow the resin to have a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible to that of the conductor, of copper, for instance, wherein copper has a known thermal expansion coefficient of 16-16.7x10-6/K and nickel has a known thermal expansion coefficient of 13x10-6/K, such that it would have been obvious to and motivated for the silicone resin of the prior art to be closer to the target values of the conductive wire/core and therefore preferably greater than 5x10-6/K.
However, a thermal conductivity above 1 W/m/°C is not taught:
Kameda teaches an insulated coil for spirally/helically winding, such as for a vehicle reactor, wherein the conductive core is provided with an electrically insulating coating of silicone resin, wherein in order to prevent interfacial fracture due to temperature cycling or mechanical vibration [0014-0016], wherein if the thermal conductivity of a silicone-based resin is less than 0.5 W/m·K, heat generated by the operation of the reactor will not be properly conducted to the outside, wherein the thermal conductivity is preferably 1.0 W/m·K or higher and particularly preferably 1.2 W/m·K from the viewpoint of heat dissipation from the coil [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a thermal conductivity of to the silicone resin within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide effective heat dissipation from the operation of the coil
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott, optionally in view of Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jakob et al. (Electric Propulsion Cables for milli-Newton Thrusters) (hereinafter “Jakob”).
Regarding claim 4, a relation between the radius curvature of the nucleus and the diameter of the inorganic insulation cable is not taught.
Jakob teaches a high temperature insulated coiled cable for a Hall Effect mN thruster mounted outside of satellites, wherein electrically insulated heat-resistant cables [1. Initial Situation] preferably have nickel plated/clad copper cores [4. Conductor Solutions], wherein a geometric design goal is preferably a minimum bending radius at least 5 between the bending radius and cable diameter [2.6 Geometrical Requirements].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the radius curvature of the nucleus being greater than or equal to the diameter of the inorganic insulation cable within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a geometric design goal for a specific aerospace-based usage comprising a workable electrically insulated, heat-resistant coil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 30th, 2026
Prosecution Insights