DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed June 16, 2025. Claims 1-17 remain pending.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (PGPub US 2013/0147287) in view of Leach et al. (PGPub US 2018/0322980) and Xiao et al. (PGPub US 2013/0216425).
Regarding applicants’ claims 1 and 9, Lee et al. disclose a motor comprising a wire wound on a winding part (paragraph 0047 and figure 7), the wound wire considered to be a coil. Lee et al. further disclose the wire being a copper clad aluminum (CCA) wire where the copper and the aluminum are considered to be a base material. The motor is considered to be an energy conversion device as it translates electrical energy into mechanical energy (claim 9).
While Lee et al. disclose that conventionally formed plates have sharp corners that can cause undesirable peel off of the coating on the wire, Lee et al. do not appear to disclose the wire to be “enameled”.
Leach et al. disclose that magnetic winding wire used in electromechanical devices is conventionally insulated with polymeric enamel films (paragraph 0003). One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to use a conventional enamel film for the insulation on the winding wire of Lee et al. where enamel films have been demonstrated in the art to be suitable for insulating winding wire, and therefore could be used as the insulating material with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee et al. also do not appear to explicitly disclose the base material to include graphene and carbon nanotubes, each in an amount of 0.2 to 30%. Xiao et al. disclose the addition of 0.1 to 1 wt.% graphene and 1-5 wt.% carbon nanotubes to aluminum to form aluminum materials high in thermal stability and which are not easily distorted after being heated (paragraph 0040). Lee et al. further disclose that the CCA wire having a high Cu content may be obtained by minimizing the thermal effect of the aluminum wire (Lee et al. paragraph 0049). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to add graphene and carbon nanotubes to the aluminum in the CCA wire of Lee et al., in those amounts disclosed by Xiao et al., in order to provide the wire with improved thermal stability and reduce heat related distortion.
The modified CCA wire of Lee et al. contains 0.1 to 1% by weight graphene and 1 to 5% by weight carbon nanotubes, where the aluminum is present at 70 to 85 vol%. While the exact proportions have not been calculated here, it is clear that the proportions of base material, graphene, and carbon nanotubes overlap those proportions claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from those proportions disclosed in the prior art including an amount of copper (Lee et al.) and an amount of graphene and carbon nanotubes (Xiao et al.), including proportions which fall within the presently claimed ranges.
Regarding applicants’ claims 2-3 and 11-12, the modified CCA wire of Lee et al. contains 0.1 to 1% by weight graphene and 1 to 5% by weight carbon nanotubes, where the aluminum is present are 70 to 85 vol%. While the exact proportions have not been calculated here, it is clear that the proportions of base material, graphene, and carbon nanotubes overlap those proportions claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from those proportions disclosed in the prior art including, an amount of copper (Lee et al.) and an amount of graphene and carbon nanotubes (Xiao et al.), including proportions which fall within the presently claimed ranges.
Regarding applicants’ claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 16 and 17, the CCA wire disclosed by Lee et al. includes copper and aluminum (paragraph 0049). While Xiao et al. do not explicitly disclose the distribution of the graphene and carbon nanotubes, Xiao et al. also do not disclose unequal distribution or disclose the alloy to have distributed properties. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to distribute the graphene and the carbon nanotubes uniformly through the aluminum alloy in order to form a material exhibiting uniform properties
Regarding applicants’ claims 5 and 14, Lee et al. disclose a copper content of 15 to 30 vol. % copper (paragraph 0049). Given 15 to 30 vol% copper and 70 to 85 vol% aluminum, the proportions overlap applicants’ claimed percent ranges if converted to weight percent. In weight percent the CCA wire of Lee et al. would include 37 to 59 wt.% copper and 41 to 63 wt.% aluminum (carbon content excluded for simplicity). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by Lee et al., including those proportions which result in a percentage that falls within the claimed ranges.
While Xiao et al. do not explicitly disclose the distribution of the graphene and carbon nanotubes, Xiao et al. also do not disclose unequal distribution and do not disclose the alloy to have distributed properties. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to distribute the graphene and the carbon nanotubes uniformly through the aluminum alloy in order to form a material exhibiting uniform properties
Regarding applicants claims 6 and 15, the CCA wire of Lee et al. comprises a copper strip provided around an aluminum wire (paragraph 0048).
Regarding applicants’ claim 10, Lee et al. disclose the motor to be for vehicle (paragraph 0047), where a motor for a vehicle, it is a transmission motor as it provides powder to propel a vehicle.
Response to Amendments
Applicants’ amendments to the claims filed June 16th 2025 overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 16, 2025 have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive.
Applicants argue that Xiao is directed to improving the heat-conductive properties of backboard material and manufacturing costs for LED chips, including providing thermal stability such that it is not prone to distort, however applicants argue that Lee does not have these requirements. Conductivity and thermal properties are important properties of electrical wires and electrical motors. Lee et al. disclose that the CCA wire having a high Cu content may be obtained by minimizing the thermal effect of the aluminum wire (Lee et al. paragraph 0049). Xiao is directed to an aluminum alloy material that has good performance of heat dissipation and thermal conductivity higher than 200 W/m, and further discloses the high thermal stability that is not easy to distort when heated (abstract, paragraphs 0040). Xiao is reasonably pertinent where the disclosure teaches aluminum materials with improved thermal properties, such that Xiao would have logically commended itself to the inventors’ attention given the need for minimizing the thermal effect of aluminum wire with high copper content as taught by Lee. For this reason and for those reasons as discussed in the rejections above, the rejections of record are maintained, and this action is made final.
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 ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784