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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet of 7/31/2023 misspelled the word in the title of the application as “Magent” and the other documents refer to the title as “Magnet”. Correction of the ADS is required to correct the title of the specification.
The Oath/Declaration did correctly present the title as “Magnet”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al (JP 2015038191).
Ueda is directed to an insulated wire made from a polymer, polyarylene sulfide (PAS) and a tetrafluroethylene (TFE) /hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP). The fluororesin is finely dispersed and can be 0.1 to 2.5 micron.
The content of fluororesin is in a mass ratio to PAS is 98:1 to 10:90 which overlaps the claimed range of up to 20% fluororesin.
If the content of the fluororesin (II) exceeds 90 by mass ratio with PAS (I), the partial discharge starting voltage of the molded product obtained from the composition tends to be low, and if it is less than 2, the relative dielectric constant The rate may increase. A more preferable range of the mass ratio (I) :( II) is 90:10 to 40:60. Since the partial discharge starting voltage of the molded product obtained from the composition can be increased and the relative dielectric constant can be decreased, a more preferable range of the mass ratio (I) :( II) is 70:30 to 40:60. There is an even more preferred range of 60:40 to 40:60.
Ueda teaches the partial discharge start voltage as shown in table 1 is 1200 and 1500 and meets the claim limitation.
As Ueda teaches the fluororesin that overlaps the claimed range, In the case where 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).
As to claim 2, Ueda teaches the fluororesin particles are PTFE or FEP.
As to claim 4, The content of fluororesin is in a mass ratio to PAS is 98:1 to 10:90 which overlaps the claimed range of up to 20% fluororesin.
As to claims 5-9, as Ueda teaches the same materials and structure and property of PDIV, it is reasonable to presume the properties of breakdown voltage and high voltage endurance are inherent to Ueda. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 10, Ueda does not teach inorganic fillers.
As to claim 14, Ueda does not teach adding surfactants.
As to claim 15, Ueda teaches the particle size of the fluororesin is 0.1 to 2.5 micron which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where 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).
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipelli et al (US20050118422)
A magnet wire including at least one conductor and at least one insulating layer. The insulating layer includes (a) at least a polymeric resin; (b) at least a fluorinated organic filler; and (c) at least a non-ionic fluorinated surfactant. The magnet wire is endowed with high resistance to pulsed voltage surges (ABST).
The fluorinated organic filler (b) is preferably added to the composition in an amount of from 1% by weight to 30% by weight, more preferably from 3% by weight to 15% by weight, with respect to the weight of the polymeric resin [0040].
Cipelli teaches the amount of fluorinated organic filler is added in amount of 1% to 30% and overlaps the claimed range of at least 20%. In the case where 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).
Cipelli is silent with regard to the partial discharge inception voltage and does not measure this property.
As Cipelli teaches the same materials and composition it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to Cipelli. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 2, Cipelli teaches the fluorinated organic filler may be selected from: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP), and several others listed in paragraph as well as mixtures [0038]. Particularly preferred is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [0038].
As to claim 4, Cipelli teaches the amount of fluorinated filler particles is preferably added to the composition in an amount of from 1% by weight to 30% by weight, more preferably from 3% by weight to 15% by weight, with respect to the weight of the polymeric resin [0040].
Cipelli teaches the amount of fluorinated organic filler is added in amount of 1% to 30% and overlaps the claimed range of at least 20%. In the case where 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).
As to claims 5-9, Lee teaches the same materials and structure as claimed and therefore reasonable to presume the properties of dielectric breakdown and high voltage endurance are inherent to the composition of Lee. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 10, Cipelli teaches optionally an inorganic filler [0031]-[0032] and therefore Cipelli teaches embodiments without the inorganic filler.
As to claim 11, Cipelli teaches an embodiment as claimed as shown in FIG. 1 shows schematically the right cross-section of a magnet wire having a circular section comprising, from the inside outwards, a conductor (1) and an insulating layer (2) according to the present invention [0062].
As to claim 13, Cipelli teaches a single strand as shown in fig. 1 and described in the specification as a conductor with the insulating layer.
As to claim 15, Cipelli teaches the fluorinated organic filler (b) has an average particle size of from 0.3 micron to 30 micron, preferably from 1.8 micron to 4 micron [0039].
As to claims 16 and 17, Cipelli teaches using more than one insulating layer, the total thickness of the insulating layers is usually from 5 micron to 300 micron depending on the diameter range and on the shape of the conductor (round or rectangular) [0060].
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipelli et al (US20050118422) in view of Honda et al (US 20130161061).
As to claim 3, Cipelli teaches the polymeric resin can be a polyimide [0037] as noted in paragraph [0037] as follows: the polymeric resin (a) may be selected from: polyesters, polyamides, polyimides, polyurethanes, polyetherimides, polyesteramideimides, epoxy resins, acrylic resins, polyamideimides, polyesterimides, nylon, polyarylsulfones, polyvinyl formals, polyvinyl acetals, polyvinyl butyrals, polyhidantoins, or mixture thereof. Particularly preferred are: polyesterimides, polyamideimides.
Cipelli is silent with regard to the relative permittivity.
Honda provides evidence that the polyimide would inherently possess the claimed relative permittivity. Honda is directed to an insulated wire includes a conductor, and an insulation covering on an outer periphery of the conductor, the insulation covering including a low-relative-permittivity insulating film that has a relative permittivity of not more than 3.2 and contains an imide structural component. The low-relative-permittivity insulating film includes a polyimide resin.
Honda provides evidence that polyimide would inherently possess the property of relative permittivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ an insulation with the claimed relative permittivity motivated to produce an insulation on a wire.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipelli et al (US20050118422) in view of Yin et al (US 6060162).
As to claim 12, Cipelli teaches an embodiment with an additional layer between FIG. 2 shows schematically the right cross-section of a further embodiment of a magnet wire comprising, in addition to the elements reported in FIG. 1, an intermediate insulating layer (3), placed between the conductor (1) and the insulating layer (2) according to the present invention [0063].
Cipelli is silent with regard to a top coat layer.
Yin is directed to a pulsed voltage surge resistant magnet wire comprising a conductor, a continuous and concentric and flexible uniform coat of base insulation material superimposed on the conductor. An essentially continuous and concentric and uniform pulsed voltage surge shield overlaying the coat of base insulation material. The shield has therein an effective amount of a particulate material. The shield is superimposed on the coat of base insulation material, and has a continuous and concentric and flexible and uniform top coat of insulation material superimposed thereon.
As shown in Fig. 1 there are layers. Yin teaches the magnet wire 10 of the invention includes a conductor 12, a continuous and concentric and flexible and uniform coat of base insulation material 14 and an essentially continuous, concentric and uniform pulse voltage surge shield 16 superimposed on the base insulation material 14. At least one continuous and concentric and flexible and uniform top coat 18 of insulation material is superimposed on the shield 16 (col. 3, lines 57-65).
Base insulation material 14 is applied to the conductor 12 in a conventional manner to provide a continuous and concentric and flexible and uniform coat of base insulation superimposed on the conductor 12.
Insulation material 14 can be of a variety of materials. These materials include polyester, polyamide, polyimide, polyurethane, polyetherimide, polyesteramideimide, epoxy, acrylic, polyamideimide, polyesterimide, NYLON, polyvinyl acetal or FORMVAR and polyarylsulfone materials.
The pulsed voltage surge shield 16 of the magnet wire 10 of the invention comprises a coat of resinous material in which from about 1% to about 65% weight of said shield is a particulate filler having a particle size from about 0.005 microns to about 1 micron. Various particulate fillers can be used in the pulsed voltage surge shield of the invention.
The top coat 18 superimposed over the shield 16 of magnet wire 10 may be provided to provide proper mechanical protection for the shield 16 or desired surface properties of the magnet wire. In other magnet wire embodiments 10 of the invention, the resinous binder of the shield 16 provides this protection. In still other embodiments of the magnet wire 10 of the invention, the top coat 18 provides magnet wire surface properties such as lubricity, toughness and scrape resistance and the like allowing the magnet wire to be tailored for specific end uses (col. 4, lines 1-57).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a top coat motivated to improve lubricity, toughness and scape resistance.
Claims 18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipelli et al (US20050118422) in view of Leach et al (US 20220044839).
As to claim 18, Cipelli teaches a rectangular wire but differs and does not disclose the dimensions.
Leach is directed to a magnet wire including extruded insulation formed from multiple layers of different materials is described. A magnet wire may include a conductor and insulation formed around the conductor. The insulation may include a first layer of extruded thermoplastic insulation formed around the conductor and a second layer of extruded thermoplastic insulation formed around the first layer of extruded thermoplastic insulation.
Leach teaches the thermoplastic can be a polyamide.
Leach teaches the magnet wire of a thermoplastic composition that can include both fluoropolymers and polyimide with filler particles that has a PDIV of 1000 – 2400 volts and dielectric breakdown 10,000 – 21,000 volts [0051].
Leach teaches the shape of the wire can be rectangular as shown in Fig. 1 and 2C and 2D [0019].
Leach teaches the dimensions of the rectangular conductor are longer sides of 0.02-0.75 inches and the shorter sides are 0.02-0.04 inches [0022]. The shorter sides define the height and are less than the long sides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a rectangular conductor shape motivated to produce a conductor with the desired shape and dimensions for the specific use.
As to claim 20, Cipelli differs and is silent with regard to the dimensions.
Leach teaches the dimensions of the rectangular shape are longer sides of 0.02-0.75 inches and the shorter sides are 0.02-0.04 inches [0022] which is equivalent to 0.51-19 mm to 0.51-1.02 mm. The maximum size is 19 mm2 and meets the claimed limitation of up to 20 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the dimensions of Leach motivated to produce the desired electrical conductor.
As to claim 21, Cipelli differs and does not teach the conductor dimensions.
Leach teaches the dimensions of dimensions of the rectangular shape are longer sides of 0.02-0.75 inches and the shorter sides are 0.02-0.04 inches [0022] which is equivalent to 0.51-19 mm to 0.51-1.02 mm. The longer (width) to shorter (height) ratio is 1:1 to 18:1 and overlaps the claimed range of 10:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed dimensions motivated to produce the desired flat conductor size.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipelli et al (US20050118422) in view of Leach et al (US 20220044839) and in further view of Aoi et al (EP 2328154).
As to claim 19, Cipelli teaches a rectangular shape. Leach teaches the rectangular shape conduction may have corners that are rounded, sharp, smoothed, curved, angled or truncated [0021].
Cipelli and Leach do not teach the radius of curvature of the rectangular edges.
Aoi is directed to an insulated wire that has a rectangular shape with chamfer corners that has a radius of 0.5mm at four corners (page 13, [0083]). The dimensions of the rectangle are thickness of 0.1 to 3.0 mm and a width of 0.5 to 15 mm [0033]. The thickness is equated the claimed height and at 0.1 to 3.0 mm in relation to 0.5 mm radius at the corners, reasonable not greater than one half the height. Aoi teaches ranges that overlap the claimed range.
Aoi teaches that the shape of the conductor suppresses partial discharge form corners by use of the chamfer shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a rectangular wire with chamfered corner at a radius not greater than one half the height motivated to suppress partial discharge from the corners.
Claim 1-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20050096429).
Lee is directed to a polymeric composite comprising a polyimide component and a fluoropolymer component derived from a micro powder. The fluoropolymer micro powder has an average particle size between 20 and 5000 nanometers (5.0 microns) (ABST).
The polyimide component and the fluoropolymer component are inter-mixed at a high dispersion level where the fluoropolymer component is present in a weight ratio from 10 to 60 percent. The polymeric composite of these two components is particularly useful in the form of a thin film used in high-speed digital circuitry or high signal integrity for low loss of a digital signal. The film can also be used as a wire wrap, or as a coverlay or base film substrate for flexible circuitry laminates (ABST).
The fluoroparticle loading is in the range of 9-120 part per 100 parts of polyamide [0011]-[0014].
Lee teaches the amount of fluorinated organic filler is added in amounts that overlap at least 20%. In the case where 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).
Lee is silent with regard to the partial discharge inception voltage and does not measure this property. As Lee teaches the same materials and composition it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to Lee. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 2, Lee teaches the fluoroparticles can be a PTFE fluoropolymer [0053].
As to claim 3, Lee differs and does not teach the relative permittivity of the polyimide resin. As Lee teaches the same materials, it is reasonable to presume that the property of relative permittivity is inherent to Lee.
As to claim 4, Lee teaches the fluoroparticle loading is in the range of 9-120 part per 100 parts of polyamide [0011]-[0014]. Lee’s loading overlaps the claimed range.
As to claims 5-9, Lee teaches the same materials and structure as claimed and therefore reasonable to presume the properties of dielectric breakdown and high voltage endurance are inherent to the composition of Lee. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 10, Lee the compositions can optionally contain inorganic fillers [0210]. As the inorganic fillers are optional, Lee teaches compositions that include less than 5% inorganic fillers.
As to claim 14, Lee teaches dispersing the fluoroparticles in the resin via methods such as continuous media milling, ultra-sonicating, dispersing surfactant or kinetic dispersion [0056]. Lee teaches alternate methods that do not require a surfactant.
As to claim 15, Lee teaches the particle size of the fluoropolymer filler is 0.02 micron to 5 microns which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 100 microns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789