DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franks (US2021/0241942A1) in view of Carlson (US3096577A).
Franks discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed by Franks are crossed out):
Claim 14. A method of making a conductor, comprising:
rolling (see Figs. 12 and 13) an ultra-conducting copper foil (6) into a multiple layer rolled ultra-conducting coper foil (see [0127]);
cladding the rolled ultra-conducting coper foil
plastically deforming (see Figs. 14 and 15; see [0128]-[0130]) the cladded rolled ultra-conducting copper foil into one of a cladded ultra-conducting copper wire
Claim 16. The method according to claim 14, wherein the ultra-conducting copper foil is made from a continuous Cu tape coated with a layer of aligned carbon nanotubes. See Fig. 7, [0113] and [0124].
Claim 17. The method according to claim 14, wherein the ultra-conducting copper foil has a coating (i.e., the layer of carbon nanotubes) that provides a lower resistance than copper foil.
Regarding the cladding being with aluminum, Franks discloses that the metallic substrate may comprise any metal, and gives copper and aluminum as two examples (see [0038]). Franks also states the metallic sleeve 12 may be any of the metal listed in relation to the metallic substrate, i.e. Franks discloses the sleeve being aluminum. However, Franks also states it is preferred that the metallic sleeve, metallic bobbin, metallic material and metallic substrate are all the same material, preferably copper. See [0067]. it is known to manufacture an aluminum clad copper wire.
Carlson teaches providing a copper rod with a layer or coating of silver, followed by disposing the bar in an aluminum sleeve or tube. See col. 2, ln. 49 to col. 3, ln. 26, followed by cold working and wire drawing to produce aluminum-clad copper wire. Carlson teaches that the use of aluminum surfaced conductors enables substantial increase in operating temperatures for a given life of electrical equipment, or longer life at the same temperature, compared to copper conductors (see col. 1, lns. 37-55).
Therefore, although Franks prefers copper for the sleeve and the metallic material, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to also use the technique of Franks with copper metallic material and aluminum sleeve, modified by the coating/covering of the copper cladded rolled ultra-conducting copper foil with silver as taught by Carlson , in order to obtain aluminum-clad copper conductors for use in electrical equipment, as taught by Carlson.
Although Franks discusses the process with respect to producing wire with a round cross-section, Franks also discloses the wire can be square in cross-section (see [0010]). Carlson teaches passing round wire through suitable rolls to produce rectangular cross-section wire. See col. 5, lns. 19-41. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the process of Franks, such that the final wire shape after wire drawing is square, in order to make a wire with square cross-section.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franks in view of Carlson further in view of Kladitis (US2023/0016467A1) and APA (admitted prior art).
Modified Franks does not disclose forming the wire, bar or cable into a hairpin winding inserted into slots of a stator core.
Kladitis teaches the suitability of such ultra-conducting conductors for motor and generator stator windings (see [0062]). Additionally, APA shows it is known to form hairpin conductors for the stator of a motor from a metal bar (see [0003] of present application).
Since hairpin conductors are known, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a bar obtained by the process of Franks/modified Franks to form a hairpin conductor for a stator winding for a motor, as a replacement for traditional metal conductors, as taught by Kladitis ([0062]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14, 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729