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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks regarding the drawing objections to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims is now shown in new Figure 3A.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because new Figure 3A is identical to the original Figure 3 with no new reference characters showing the claimed limitations of claims 6 and 7. Therefore, the drawing objection is maintained.
2. Applicant argues on page 12 of the remarks with regard to claim 14, “that the lack of addressing a particular condition in the prior art is not properly a teaching of an elimination of that condition. Interpreting a reference in such a way is error.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because silence regarding a feature in the prior art does not act as a negative limitation as suggested by the Applicant. In this case, no mention of varnish being used, when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation the electric machine covered by the prior art can either include varnish (or other insulative coatings) or operate perfectly fine without varnish.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed March 9, 2026, with respect to the specification objection and the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection and 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 3 and 4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of the remarks, filed March 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 18 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of DeFilippis (US 2015/0084445), Kouda (US 2010/0141078) and Morgan (US 2,425,294).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a thermoplastic tape” and “outside surface of the coil” of claim 6
“a thermoplastic shrink tube” of claim 7
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 is a duplicate of claim 8 and as a result claim numbers 10-16 are misnumbered with two claims numbered 16.
For examining purposes the duplicate claim 9 is being omitted and the misnumbered claims 10-16 have been renumbered claims 9-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salam (US 11,894,756) and Kira (JP 2013217285 A) disclose an electric machine including a coil devoid of varnish.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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