DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 of U.S. Application No. 18141461 filed on 04/30/2023 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1- arguments under “discussion of Office Action’s response to arguments”:
In page 8 of the Remarks of 3/30/2026, the Applicant wrote:
PNG
media_image1.png
540
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the basis for the statement is from the specifications, paragraph [0011], and fig. 5. Paragraph [0011] expressly discloses (emphasis added by the Examiner)
PNG
media_image2.png
147
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 shows a cross-section of the motor coil with electrically continuous pathway 211, the pathway(s) which corresponds to a wire in the prior art coil, is wound around the center of the coil forming multiple cross-sections of the pathway 211, the cross-sections (seen clearly in fig. 5) are separated by resistive insulating layers 215. The specifications itself referring to the pathway(s) of the solid coil in plural form (pathways) as seen above in para [0011].
Further, and in regarding the Applicant argument regarding the breaking of the coil and the destructive test, such measures are not claimed, or discussed in the claimed invention, therefore, the argument amounts to a general allegations that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The Applicant further wrote:
PNG
media_image3.png
291
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because introducing a term to describe a structure that already known does not make it inventive. The Applicant Remarks argues the name however fails to show any structural distinction between the claimed invention and the prior art.
2- arguments under “Claim Rejections-35 USC § 102”:
The Applicant argues that Brown does not disclose the limitation of claim 1 “said solid motor coil is a solid unitary monolithic piece.” The Applicant wrote:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
846
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
211
975
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
282
974
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Applicant seems to define the word “monolithic” as a one piece of a metal lump which is contradictory to the word coil. Also, the claim requires that coil itself to be monolithic while they argue the characteristics of the pathways.
In the light of the disclosure, a solid monolithic coil (210; see fig. 6B) comprises plurality of SEPARATE (para [0011]) conductive pathways (211; fig. 5) with a resistive layers (215) separating the individual pathways. Therefore, in the light of the disclosure, the claimed coil is also made of separates pathways and therefore, Brown indeed discloses the limitation of claim 1, “said solid motor coil is a solid unitary monolithic piece.”
The Applicant further argues that Brown coil is “different pieces” and “should not present any difficulty in being separated” thus not monolithic. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because as discussed above, in light of the specifications and the drawings, Applicant’s coil is made of the pathways separated by resistive layers.
The Applicant further argues the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
621
836
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
361
846
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Evidenced by Fig. 5 of the instant Application, the three units tall is what corresponds to the Applicant’s invention. By looking at the 3 unit units tall above, they have the same exact structure of the Applicant coil 210 shown in fig. 5. More appropriate definition for the word “monolithic from Merriam Webster is constituting a single unit.
PNG
media_image9.png
57
408
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In that context, the coil 210 is constituting a single coil unit installed on tooth 204 (fig. 3-4). Similarly, Brown discloses a single unit coil (i.e. monolithic coil) 20 seen in fig. 1.
Finally, the Applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image10.png
294
842
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As for the method of manufacturing, the method is not given a patentable weight since the final product in the prior art is identical to claim 1 as discussed above a and seen below:
PNG
media_image11.png
933
993
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2021/0234424; Hereinafter, “Brown”).
Regarding claim 1: Brown discloses a solid motor coil (20), said solid motor coil comprising: a conductive pathway (insulated wires 24; para [0035]), said conductive pathway extending through (by being wound around axis W) said solid motor coil (20), said conductive pathway repeatedly routing along a first, second, third, and fourth direction (the four sides of the rectangle shaped coil 20 seen in fig. 1) to form a coiled pathway, wherein the repeatedly routed conductive pathways (24) form a cross-section comprising multiple portions of said conductive pathway (at least at the four sides of the coil 20) adjacent to each other as part of said solid motor coil (20); and a plurality of resistive layers (the insulation on wires 24), said plurality of resistive layers residing between said multiple portions of said conductive pathway (sine they surround each wire 24), wherein said solid motor coil (20) is a solid unitary monolithic piece (as coil 20 is not “loose twist of wires”, rather is if formed from of a sold air mass without air voids as explained in para [0006, 0034]).
PNG
media_image12.png
418
834
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1: Brown discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that said multiple portions of said conductive pathway (24) alter horizontal and vertical location (for example, the long sides, and the short sides 26 as seen in fig. 1-2, 5-6) within a cross-section of said solid motor coil (20) along said first and third directions (the long sides of coil 20).
Regarding claim 3/2/1: Brown discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that said multiple portions of said conductive pathway (24) further alter horizontal and vertical location (the vertical portion of the long side, and short side 26) within a cross-section of said solid motor coil (24) along said second and fourth directions (the two short sides 26).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Kusumoto et al. (US 2002/0050395; Hereinafter, “Kusumoto”).
Regarding claim 4/2/1: Brown discloses the limitations of claim 2 but does not disclose that a cross sectional profile of said conductive pathway changes exterior shape along said first and third directions.
Kusumoto teaches forming a cross sectional profile of said conductive pathway (1; fig. 10-11) changes exterior shape (as seen in the figures, the conductor 1 shape changes constantly as it is twisted constantly) along said first and third directions (two of the straight sections 21; fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cross sectional profile of said conductive pathway of Brown to change exterior shape along said first and third directions as taught by Kusumoto to be able to provide a coil that is low in skin effect, simple, low cost, with high productivity (para [0006-0009]).
Regarding claim 5/3/2/1: Brown discloses the limitations of claim 3 but does not disclose that a cross sectional profile of said conductive pathway changes exterior shape along said second and fourth directions.
Kusumoto teaches forming a cross sectional profile of said conductive pathway (1; fig. 10-11) changes exterior shape (as seen in the figures, the conductor 1 shape changes constantly as it is twisted constantly) along said second and fourth directions (two of the cross-over sections 22; fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cross sectional profile of said conductive pathway of Brown to change exterior shape along said second and fourth directions as taught by Kusumoto to be able to provide a coil that is low in skin effect, simple, low cost, with high productivity (para [0006-0009]).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Adra (US 20150108855; Hereinafter, “Adra”).
Regarding claim 6/1, 7/1, 8/1, 9/1, and 10/2/1: Brown discloses the limitations of claim1 and further discloses that the conductive pathway (24) comprises copper (para [0004, 0032])
Brown is silent about the type of insulation on the wires 24, in particular, Brown does not disclose that said resistive layers have a resistivity greater than 10 times/100 times the resistivity of said conductive pathway.
Adra teaches that said conductive pathway (46) comprises copper (para [0030]), and wherein said resistive layers (the enamel insulator) have a resistivity (known to be 4.5x104 Ω.m) greater than 10 times/100 times (resistivity of enamel is 2.67x1012 times more than copper) the resistivity of said conductive pathway (copper resistivity is 1.68x10-8 Ω.m).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the enamel as insulator for the insulated wires 24 of Brown that have resistivity greater than 10 times/100 times the resistivity of said conductive pathway since doing so allows for higher current capacity and reduces the possibility of insulation failure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Kusumoto and in further view of Adra.
Regarding claim 11/4/2/1: Brown in view of Kusumoto discloses the limitations of claim 4, and Brown further discloses that the conductive pathway (24) comprises copper (para [0004, 0032])
Brown is silent about the type of insulation on the wires 24, in particular, Brown does not disclose that said resistive layers have a resistivity greater than 100 times the resistivity of said conductive pathway.
Adra teaches that said conductive pathway (46) comprises copper (para [0030]), and wherein said resistive layers (the enamel insulator) have a resistivity (known to be 4.5x104 Ω.m) greater than 100 times (resistivity of enamel is 2.67x1012 times more than copper) the resistivity of said conductive pathway (copper resistivity is 1.68x10-8 Ω.m).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the enamel as insulator for the insulated wires 24 of Brown that have resistivity greater than 100 times the resistivity of said conductive pathway since doing so allows for higher current capacity and reduces the possibility of insulation failure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights