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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18, 22, 26, 30 , 35, 40 and 43 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 46-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 13 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to improve claim language, in claim 2 the abbreviated term PEEK should be first introduced as polyetheretherketone. Similarly in claim 13, abbreviations PPSU, PES and PSU should be first introduced as polyphenylsulfone, polyethersulfone and polysulfone respectively. In claim 22, in the first line after wherein and before PEEK1, insert ---the---, and in line 4 after wherein and before PEEK2, insert ---the---.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 18, 30, 35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox EP0182580 A2.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 18, 30 and 35, Cox teaches (page 5, line 1 and Example 1, and page 4, lines 32-36) Example 1, a polymer composition derived from 85 wt% polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and 15 wt% talc with an average particle size of 3.7µm, which is used as an insulation layer for wire coating, meeting the claimed requirements. Cox's Example 1 also reads on the instant claims 11, 18, 30 and 35 and the required melt viscosity and the viscosity ratio r would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Cox discloses (page 14, claim 6) polyaryletherketone where 100% of the repeat units can be the structure as shown below, which corresponds to the required J-A, with j’=0 and J’-A.
PNG
media_image1.png
62
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Cox discloses (page 12, Table Eight, Eg 1) elongation at break value of 11%, meeting the claimed requirement.
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 2, 22 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox, as applied to claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 18, 30, 35 and 40 above, and further in view of Saito et al. US 2021/0009846 A1, with evidentiary support of Victrex PEEK polymer 450P technical data sheet.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Cox discloses (page 5, Example 1) PEEK polymer Victrex polymer 450 P grade which has a melt viscosity of 350 Pa.s (see Victrex data sheet), which corresponds to applicant’s PEEK1. Cox is silent on combining two PEEK polymers with different viscosities, however in order to optimize the PEEK based insulation layer, an artisan skilled in the art would look to analogous reference Saito who also teaches wire compositions derived from PEEK polymers (Saito title and para [0009]). Saito recommends blending two or more PEEK polymers with different melt viscosities to tailor the melt behavior of the polymer composition in order to improve adhesion of the polymer insulating film to the conductor (paras [0041] and [0035]). Saito discloses PEEK2 (para [0072]) with a melt viscosity of 150 Pa.s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added PEEK2 as taught by Saito to the PEEK composition of Cox for the same application of creating a wire layer with improved adhesion to the conductor.
Regarding claim 43, Cox is silent on the wire type, however Saito discloses (para [0003]) magnet wire, thus making the claimed requirement obvious.
Claims 3, 13-14, 16 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox, as applied to claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 18, 30, 35 and 40 above, and further in view of Sato et al. WO2018/234116 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Cox is silent on the incorporation of polyarylethersulfone (PAES) polymer, however in order to optimize the PEEK based composition, an artisan skilled in the art would look to reference Sato who also discloses PEEK based insulation layers for conductive wires (Sato Page 1, Background). Sato encourages the blending of PAES with PEEK to increase the peel strength of the PEEK with epoxy, where epoxy is typically used for potting the PEEK-coated wires. Sato adds that the inclusion of PAES in PEEK eliminates the need for surface treatment without sacrificing chemical or mechanical properties (Sato Page 2, lines 10-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have blended PAES as taught by Sato to the PEEK composition of Cox for the same application of creating a wire where the PEEK based insulating film has improved peel strength to the epoxy potting material.
Regarding claim 13, Sato teaches (page 4, line 25 and last line; page 5, line 3 and line 5) that the PAES polymer can be selected to be polyphenylenesulfone (PPSU) where 99 mol% of recurring units are formula B-1, as shown below and where each d is zero.
PNG
media_image2.png
124
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Sato teaches (page 14, Materials) PPSU Radel® 5800NT from Solvay Specialty Polymers which is the same as used by the applicant (instant specification para [00151]) and has a MFR of 25g/10min, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 16, Sato teaches (page 6, lines 11-16) the amount of PAES polymer in the polymer composition to be 12 to 17 w% based on the total weight of the PEEK and the PAES, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 43, Cox is silent on the wire type, however Sato discloses (page 20, claim 13) magnet wire, thus making the claimed requirement obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights