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Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/05/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I Species B in the reply filed on 09/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified species are not mutually exclusive to one another, without providing any arguments regarding the restriction between Group I (claims 1-15) and Group II (claims 16-20). The examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments regarding the Species restriction, but maintains the restriction requirement between Group I (claims 1-15) and Group II (claims 16-20) because these inventions do have mutual distinctness, e.g. Group I being directed towards electrically insulating any conductive component whereas Group II specifically includes a step of additively manufacturing a variable cross-section coil and applying the coatings to the variable cross-section coil which is not present in Group I.
The requirement between Group I (claims 1-15) and Group II (claims 16-20) is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/11/2023 and 07/03/2024 have been acknowledged.
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 7-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the conductive component is additively manufactured”. However, the conductive component being additively manufactured does not affect the claimed method of electrically insulating the conductive component, therefore it is not clear if the applicant is attempting to claim both a method of insulating the conductive component and a method of manufacturing the conductive component which would be improper, thereby rendering the claim indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination the examiner interprets the limitations of claim 7 such that the method of electrically insulating a conductive component is configured to effectively coat an additively manufactured conductive component (the method of electrically insulating a conductive component would also be capable of effectively coating differently manufactured conductive components as well).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “forming distributed windings, concentrated windings, concentrated tooth windings, lap windings, wave windings, concentric windings, or hairpin windings in the electric machine with the conductive component”. However, a step of forming these specific types of windings with the conductive component does not affect the claimed method of electrically insulating the conductive component, therefore it is not clear if the applicant is attempting to claim both a method of insulating the conductive component and a method of manufacturing windings which would be improper, thereby rendering the claim indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation such that the conductive component can be any of the listed types of windings of an electric machine
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,922,413 to Takeda.
As per claim 1, as best understood, a method of electrically insulating a conductive component for an electric machine, the method comprising:
applying a dispersion coating (see electrodeposition film 9b in Fig 9) of a first dielectric material (‘liquid resin’, see Col 3 line 61-67 and Col 8 line 47-54) to the conductive component (see core 9 in Fig 9) to form a first dielectric coating;
applying an electrostatic coating (see powder coat film 9c in Fig 9) of a second dielectric material (‘electrostatic powder’, see Col 5 line 31-40 and Col 9 line 6-8) to the conductive component to form a second dielectric coating; and
curing the first dielectric coating and the second dielectric coating (see Col 4 line 9-14, Col 7 line 27-28 and line 55-56, and Col 8 line 65 – Col 9 line 21).
As per claim 2, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Takeda further discloses that the first dielectric coating is applied before the second dielectric coating (see Fig 9; see Col 7 line 21-29 and Col 8 line 46-Col 9 line 21).
As per claim 3, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Takeda further discloses drying the first dielectric coating before applying the electrostatic coating (see Col 4 line 9-14, Col 7 line 27-28, and Col 8 line 65 – Col 9 line 4).
As per claim 4, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Takeda further discloses that the first dielectric coating comprises plastic resin (see Col 3 line 61-67 and Col 8 line 47-54).
As per claim 5, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Takeda further discloses that the second dielectric coating comprises polyester resin (see Col 5 line 31-37).
As per claim 11, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Takeda further discloses before the applying of the dispersion coating, preparing at least a portion of an outer surface of the conductive component (see Col 7 line 7-12).
As per claim 13, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Takeda further discloses that the curing the first dielectric coating and the second dielectric coating further comprises heating the conductive component, the first dielectric coating, or the second dielectric coating between 25° C and 500° C (160°C, 200°C; see Col 9 line 1-23).
As per claim 15, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Takeda further discloses drying the first electrostatic coating before applying the second electrostatic coating (see Col 4 line 9-14, Col 7 line 27-28, and Col 8 line 65 – Col 9 line 4).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,922,413 to Takeda in view of US 2010/0264761 to Durantay.
As per claim 6, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, Takeda further discloses that the first and/or second dielectric coatings can comprise a large variety of different dielectric materials including resins and other polymers (see Col 3 line 61-67, Col 4 line 15-26, Col 5 line 31-37 ), but does not explicitly disclose that the first and second dielectric coatings comprise polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Durantay discloses a similar conductive component (see conductors 22 in Fig 22) of an electric machine wherein both a primary insulation (see 24 in Fig 3) and a secondary insulation (see 26 in Fig 3) provided over the conductive component comprise polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in order to improve the corrosion resistance and dielectric strength of the insulation for the conductive component (see Para 0010-0012).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the materials of the first and second dielectric coatings to include polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as taught by Durantay. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it has been held that a selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill and a mere change in the material is nothing more than one of numerous materials that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application, and further that the inventions of Takeda and Durantay are both directed towards methods for insulating components of an electrical machine and therefore it would have been a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Durantay for improvements for Takeda; the obvious advantages of using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in the first and second dielectric coatings being that this would improve the corrosion resistance and dielectric strength of the insulation for the conductive component (Durantay: see Para 0010-0012), and making both coatings the same or similar materials would enhance the cohesion between the coatings since there would not be a large difference in thermal expansion between the coatings which could cause delamination of the coatings during operation as would be generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,922,413 to Takeda in view of US 2019/0372441 to Yin.
As per claim 7, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the conductive component is additively manufactured. However, the specific method of manufacturing the conductive component would not affect the claimed method of electrically insulating the conductive component as discussed in the above 112(b) rejection. Further, determining the method of manufacturing the conductive component would have been well within the skills of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore it would have been an obvious choice for one of ordinary skills in the art to choose between the known methods of manufacturing conductive components to additively manufacture the conductive component such as disclosed in Yin (Para 0005, 0024, 0027, and 0031-0035) with the reasonable expectation that additive manufacturing would effectively form the conductive component as disclosed in Yin and additive manufacturing would allow for increased design freedom and/or allow for small batch runs of electric components to be quickly manufactured without requiring expensive tooling specifically made for the manufacturing of the conductive component as would be generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and additive manufacturing techniques allow for a reduction of assembly steps (Yin: Para 0035).
As per claim 8, Takeda and Yin disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7.Takeda further discloses that the conductive component can comprise steel (Col 8 line 60-64), and Yin discloses that the conductive component can comprise copper or steel (Para 0027, 0034-0035, 0061).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,922,413 to Takeda in view of US 2019/0372441 to Yin in view of JP 2011-15456 to Yasuhara (translation provided by examiner).
As per claim 9, Takeda and Yin disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Takeda discloses that the electric machine includes windings; and Yin discloses that the additively manufactured conductive component that is coated can include a stator or a rotor of an electric machine (Para 0005, 0027, and 0031) or can be windings of the electric machine (Para 0024 and 0030).
Further, Yasuhara discloses a similar method of making an insulated conductive component of an electric machine wherein the electric component is a distributed winding (see distributed winding stator coil 4 in Fig 1) or a concentrated winding (see concentrated winding stator coil 44 in Fig 2-4) of the electric machine, wherein the windings are insulated using coatings (see epoxy resin 9 in Fig 2) of insulative material in order to increase the electric dielectric strength of the windings (see Translation Page 3-4).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the above combination of Takeda and Yin as to change the conductive component that is coated to be a distributed or concentrated winding as taught by Yasuhara. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize determining the type of windings for an electric machine for a particular application would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and that insulating windings is very well-known in the art to avoid dielectric breakdown and/or shorts in the winding and therefore it would be a routine matter to provide the coatings as claimed to windings as taught by Yasuhara; the obvious advantages being that this would allow for the manufacture of an electric machine with the desired type of windings (e.g. distributed or concentrated windings) for a given application, and that the coatings being applied to the windings would increase the dielectric strength and dielectric breakdown strength of the windings to result in a more reliable electric machine (Yasuhara: see Translation Page 3-4).
As per claim 10, Takeda, Yin, and Yasuhara disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Yasuhara further discloses that the conductive component that is coated comprises concentrated windings (see concentrated winding stator coil 44 in Fig 2-4) with a changing cross section (see Fig 3-4 that show that the cross section of the concentrated winding stator coil 44 changes in the radial direction so as to better fill the spaces in the stator 11).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,922,413 to Takeda in view of US 5,663,601 to Wakabayashi.
As per claim 12, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Takeda discloses that the applying of the dispersion coating includes applying a primer coating (see electrodeposition film 9b in Fig 9) to the outer surface of the conductive component that has been prepared (see Col 7 line 7-27), and therefore does not disclose that the primer coating is applied before the dispersion coating to form the first dielectric coating. However, primer coatings are known in the art for increasing the adhesion of subsequent coats to a component, therefore it would have been an obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply an initial primer coating to the conductive component before the first dielectric coating and the second dielectric coating in order to increase the adhesion of the first dielectric coating to the conductive component as discussed in Takeda (Col 3 line 44-51 and Col 4 line 19-24). Further, determining the number of insulative coatings, e.g. including a primer coating as claimed, to apply to a conductor would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because there are only so many combinations of number of coatings that can be applied to a conductor and determining the number of insulative coatings required for a specific application would be routine in the art.
Further, Wakabayashi discloses a similar coating method for a conductive component (see rotor core 6 in Fig 1) of an electric machine wherein the conductive component is coated with a first insulation layer (see 71 in Fig 1 and 7) used as a primer layer (see Col 6 line 8-15) followed by a second insulation layer (see 72 in Fig 1 and 7) wherein each of the first and second insulation layers can be made by multiple thin depositions (see P1, P2, and P3 of first insulation layer 71 and S1 and S2 of second insulation layer 72 in Fig 1E) and/or the first and second insulation layers can be repeated (see 71 and 72 in Fig 7) in order to prevent bubbling of the insulation layers (see Col 5-6).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the coatings of Takeda to include an additional primer coating (i.e. a coating of the dispersion coating) as taught by Wakabayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that primer coats are well-known in the art for increasing adhesion between components and insulation coats, and determining an optimal number of coatings including primer coatings for a specific application would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore it would be a routine matter to provide an additional primer coating before the dispersion coating as taught by Wakabayashi; the obvious advantages being that this would allow for the thickness of each of the insulation coatings to be reduced thereby reducing the likelihood of bubbles forming in the insulation coatings (Wakabayashi: Col 5 line 36-52 and Col 6 line 27-42)
As per claim 14, Takeda discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the applying of the electrostatic coating further comprises applying a first and second electrostatic coating to form the second dielectric coating. However, determining the number of insulative coatings, to apply to a conductor would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because there are only so many combinations of number of coatings that can be applied to a conductor and determining the number of insulative coatings required for a specific application would be routine in the art.
Further, Wakabayashi discloses a similar coating method for a conductive component (see rotor core 6 in Fig 1) of an electric machine wherein the conductive component is coated with a first insulation layer (see 71 in Fig 1 and 7; Col 6 line 8-15) followed by a second insulation layer (see 72 in Fig 1 and 7) wherein each of the first and second insulation layers can be made by multiple thin depositions (see P1, P2, and P3 of first insulation layer 71 and S1 and S2 of second insulation layer 72 in Fig 1E) in order to prevent bubbling of the insulation layers (see Col 5-6), wherein the thin depositions can be performed using electrostatic coating methods (see Col 7 line 18 – Col 8 line 8).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the coatings of Takeda such that the second dielectric coating is formed by a first electrostatic coating and a second electrostatic coating as taught by Wakabayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining an optimal number of coatings for a specific application would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore it would be a routine matter to provide an additional electrostatic coating for making the second dielectric coating as taught by Wakabayashi; the obvious advantages being that this would allow for the thickness of each of the insulation coatings to be reduced thereby reducing the likelihood of bubbles forming in the insulation coatings (Wakabayashi: Col 5 line 36-52 and Col 6 line 27-42)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D. Anderson, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0157. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 7 AM and 1 PM Arizona time.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-3460.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/JOSHUA D ANDERSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729