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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 18, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Invention I of the originally filed claims 1-20 and Invention II of newly submitted claims 21-23 are unrelated. Invention II is a method for recycling and requires a recycling machine and a collection area which is not required for Invention I. A separate search would need to be performed for each invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed August 18, 2026, with respect to the claims 9-16 have been fully considered and are sufficient. The objection of claims 9-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the remarks, filed August 18, 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks regarding claim 1 “DeFillipis teaches at paragraph [0047]: "one or more of the plastic components 111, 112, 113, 115 or 211, 212, 215, 218, are made of a plastic material". As to actual material disclosed, the Examiner points to the disclosure of Polyethylene Terephthalate material. With regard to Morgan, the teaching includes: "...wires may be coated with any desired thermoplastic material having the required dielectric properties...". The only disclosed material is polyethelene in column 3, line 1…Claim 1 requires that the plastic part and the wire insulation be made exclusively of a SINGLE thermoplastic material, i.e., it's the exact same material according to the language of the claim. Polyethylene and Polyethylene Terephthalate are NOT a single material...they are NOT the same material. These are decidedly different materials with different properties, importantly including melting temperature. Polyethylene (PE) melts at a 105°C to 135°C (221 F to 275°F), while polyethylene terephthalate (PET) melts at a significantly higher 250°C to 260°C (482°F to 500°F). PBT and PCT, also disclosed in DeFillipis but not specifically referenced by the Examiner also exhibit significantly higher melting points relative to PE. Accordingly, the purpose of the invention (the insulation on the wires AND the plastic part of the machine melting at the same temp for recycling) would not be served by this combination and, more importantly, the language of the claim is not met by this combination.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the polyethelene material disclosed by the secondary reference of Morgan is provided as an example of a material that could be used after clearly establishing the “wires may be coated with any desired thermoplastic material having the required dielectric properties” in column 2, lines 47-53 and recited by the Applicant. Morgan’s example of the polyethelene material belongs to the Polyethylene Terephthalate chemical family. The teaching of any desired thermoplastic material includes the Polyethylene Terephthalate material taught by DeFilippis. DeFilippis and Morgan are both using the material as insulators. DeFilippis’ example of Polyethylene Terephthalate material has a high melting point (typically around 250°C/482°F) as mentioned by the Applicant. Morgan teaches requiring a material that will not soften under normal operating temperatures which align with the Polyethylene Terephthalate properties. The wire insulation material used in Morgan can be the same plastic material used in DeFilippis. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of DeFilippis in view of Morgan teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 18. Claim 12 is taught by the prior art for the same reason.
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, 2, 6-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFilippis (US 2015/0084445), in view of Morgan (US 2,425,294).
Regarding claim 1, DeFilippis discloses an electric machine (100, 200 of Figure 1, 2) comprising:
a rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2) comprising metal (207, 208 of Figure 2) and plastic portions (Para. 0042), the plastic portions being exclusively of a single thermoplastic material (Para. 0047, 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)).
DeFilippis does not explicitly disclose a wire with insulation thereon and the insulation on the wire being exclusively of a single thermoplastic material.
Morgan discloses a wire (10 of Figure 1-14) with insulation thereon (11 of Figure 1-3, 5, 7, 9-14) and the insulation on the wire being exclusively of a single thermoplastic material (Col. 2:43-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the wires of DeFilippis be insulated with a thermoplastic material, as taught by Morgan, because it will not soften to such an extent that it would affect its insulation value and mechanical strength, at any temperature to which the finished conductor will normally be subjected while in use [Morgan: Col. 2:47-53].
Regarding claim 2, DeFilippis discloses wherein the rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2) further includes a coil (Para. 0041), the coil being devoid of varnish (no mention of varnish being used).
Regarding claim 6, DeFilippis discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein a thermoplastic tape is wound around an outside surface of the coil (Para. 0041) (claim 6);
wherein a thermoplastic shrink tube is disposed about the coil (Para. 0041) (claim 7).
Morgan discloses wherein a thermoplastic tape (13a of Figure 14) is wound around an outside surface of the coil (C3, 16a of Figure 14) (claim 6);
wherein a thermoplastic shrink tube (14 of Figure 10; Col. 3:42-49) is disposed about the coil (Col. 3:50-52) (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the coil of DeFilippis covered with a thermoplastic tape and/or thermoplastic shrink tube, as taught by Morgan, to provide superior electrical insulation, mechanical protection, and environmental sealing for electrical machines.
Regarding claim 8, DeFilippis discloses further including a stator (105, 205 of Figure 1, 2), the stator comprising metal (107, 108 of Figure 1) and plastic portions (111, 112 of Figure 1; Para. 0033), the plastic portions being exclusively of thermoplastic material (Para. 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)).
Regarding claim 9, DeFilippis discloses wherein the stator (105, 205 of Figure 1, 2) further includes a coil (109 of Figure 1), the coil being devoid of varnish (no mention of varnish being used).
Regarding claim 10, DeFilippis discloses wherein the stator and rotor plastic portions are exclusively of a single thermoplastic material (Para. 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)).
Regarding claim 11, DeFilippis discloses wherein the plastic portions include spacers between coils (111, 112 of Figure 1; Para. 0033).
DeFilippis does not explicitly disclose other components of the electrical machine “wherein the plastic portions include end caps, plastic part of slip rings, slot liners, insulation on wire, covering on coils, busbars, wedges, and insulation covering on hairpin welds”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to use plastics for the other common and well known components of an electrical machine to provide moisture resistance, superior electrical insulation, and better thermal management of the plastics since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, DeFilippis discloses a method for making a recyclable electric machine (100, 200 of Figure 1, 2) comprising:
assembling a rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2) consisting of a plurality of metallic components (207, 208 of Figure 2), and a plurality of plastic portions (Para. 0042), the plastic portions consisting of a single thermoplastic material (Para. 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)).
DeFilippis does not explicitly disclose a wire with insulation thereon and the insulation on the wire being exclusively of a single thermoplastic material.
Morgan discloses a wire (10 of Figure 1-14) with insulation thereon (11 of Figure 1-3, 5, 7, 9-14) and the insulation on the wire consisting of a single thermoplastic material (Col. 2:43-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the wires of DeFilippis be insulated with a thermoplastic material, as taught by Morgan, because it will not soften to such an extent that it would affect its insulation value and mechanical strength, at any temperature to which the finished conductor will normally be subjected while in use [Morgan: Col. 2:47-53].
Regarding claim 19, DeFilippis discloses further including assembling a stator (105, 205 of Figure 1, 2):
consisting of a plurality of metallic components (107, 108 of Figure 1), and a plurality of plastic portions (111, 112 of Figure 1; Para. 0033), the plastic portions consisting of thermoplastic material (Para. 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)).
Regarding claim 20, DeFilippis discloses wherein the plastic portions are exclusively of a single thermoplastic material (Para. 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFilippis (US 2015/0084445) and Morgan (US 2,425,294) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Looser (US 2020/0028402).
Regarding claim 3, DeFilippis discloses including a spacer (211, 212 of Figure 2; Para. 0042) disposed between the coil and an adjacent coil (Para. 0041-0042) and which spacer exhibits a Poisson’s ratio (inherent mechanical property of any material used for the spacer).
DeFilippis does not explicitly disclose the spacer is configured to accept a fastener.
Looser discloses the spacer (15 of Figure 2a) is configured to accept a fastener (16 of Figure 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the spacer of DeFilippis configured to accept a fastener, as taught by Looser, because it is well known in the art that fasteners such as bolts, screw, and rivets are used to ensure structural integrity and function of the electric machine.
Regarding claim 4, DeFilippis discloses wherein the Poisson’s ratio is in a range of ratios from about 0.1 to about 0.5 (the spacer is made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Para. 0052) for which the Poisson's ratio typically ranges between 0.33 and 0.44).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFilippis (US 2015/0084445), in view of Kouda (US 2010/0141078) and Morgan (US 2,425,294).
Regarding claim 12, DeFilippis discloses an electric machine (100, 200 of Figure 1, 2) comprising:
a rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2), the rotor comprising;
a shaft (see Figures1-2, shaft is shown with the rotor);
a coil (Para. 0041) disposed adjacent the shaft;
a first thermoplastic material disposed on the rotor and having a first melting point (Para. 0047, 0052, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), melting point 250-260ᵒC).
DeFilippis does not explicitly disclose a second thermoplastic material disposed on the rotor and having a second melting point at least 20 degrees C higher than the first melting point (Para. 0047, 0053,); and
a wire having insulation thereon, the insulation being one of the first thermoplastic material or the second thermoplastic material.
Kouda discloses a second thermoplastic material disposed on the rotor and having a second melting point at least 20 degrees C higher than the first melting point (Para. 0066, for example poly(cyclohexylene dimethylene terephthalate) (PCT), melting point 285ᵒC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a second thermoplastic material disposed on the rotor of DeFilippis having a second melting point at least 20 degrees C higher than the first melting point, as taught by Kouda, to ensure the insulation of the wire by the outer layer solidifying earlier than the inner layer, when subjected to heat produced by the rotary electric machine, so that the hardness of the surface of the outer layer will be increased, thereby providing a scratch resistance to the wire [Kouda: Para. 0066].
Morgan discloses a wire (10 of Figure 1-14) having insulation thereon (11 of Figure 1-3, 5, 7, 9-14), the insulation being one of the first thermoplastic material or the second thermoplastic material (Col. 2:43-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the wires of DeFilippis be insulated with a thermoplastic material, as taught by Morgan, because it will not soften to such an extent that it would affect its insulation value and mechanical strength, at any temperature to which the finished conductor will normally be subjected while in use [Morgan: Col. 2:47-53].
Regarding claim 13, DeFilippis discloses wherein the rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2) comprises only one first thermoplastic material and only one second thermoplastic material (Para. 0047, 0052-0053).
Regarding claim 14, DeFilippis discloses wherein the coil (Para. 0041) is devoid of varnish (no mention of varnish being used).
Regarding claim 15, DeFilippis discloses further including a stator (105, 205 of Figure 1, 2), the stator comprising only one of the first thermoplastic material and only one of the second thermoplastic material (Para. 0047, 0052-0053, 0057).
Regarding claim 16, DeFilippis discloses wherein the first thermoplastic material of the stator (105, 205 of Figure 1, 2) is the same material (Para. 0047, 0052-0053, 0057) as the first thermoplastic material of the rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2).
Regarding claim 17, DeFilippis discloses wherein the second thermoplastic material of the stator (105, 205 of Figure 1, 2) is the same material (Para. 0047, 0052-0053, 0057) as the second thermoplastic material of the rotor (106, 206 of Figure 1, 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 PM.
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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights