DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
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 feature of “the mica- containing tape is wound in 1/2 lap overlap with a 1/4 lap index” (claim 5) and “the slot corona suppression insulation comprises a tape applied with an approximate 3/4 to 1 inch overlap” (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 3 & 12, delete first “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 5, “1/2 width lap overlap with a ¼ lap index” is indefinite. It is not clear what a “¼ lap index” means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9 & 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid et al. (US 6,836,204) in view of Stackhouse et al. (US 4,427,740).
Regarding claim 1, Reid teaches an electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation (“insulating tapes”) 34 disposed over each successive turn (end region) 30 of the formed coil (“pre-fabricated”) coil 26 (including coil segments 32; c.3:49-51; c.4:3-9; Figs.2&3A);
a “multi-layer of” [sic] mica ground wall insulation 38 comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape (i.e., “additional tapes” comprising mica, c.4:8-10; c.6:29-31) disposed over multiple turns of the coil 26, wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape (mica ground wall insulation tapes 38 may be applied in overlapping turns or wraps 40 over coil segments 32; c.4:8-10; Fig.3A); and
armor insulation (not shown) disposed over ends of the coil (end region) 30 (c.5:48-50; Fig.5E) and at least a portion of coil leads 24 (c.5:63-65; Fig.5F), wherein the turn insulation (insulating tapes) 34 and the “multi-layer of” [sic] mica ground wall insulation 38 extend over the slot cell sections (main regions) 28 of the coil (c.3:66-c.4:3; c.4:65-c.5:27; Fig.2).
Reid further teaches a machine core (i.e., stator core; c.3:28-30) but does not further teach “slot corona suppression insulation disposed over the mica ground wall insulation [38] and extending beyond ends of [the] core of [the] machine” or “voltage grading insulation disposed over at least a portion of the slot corona suppression insulation and extending beyond the slot corona suppression insulation at ends of the coil”.
PNG
media_image1.png
131
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
165
219
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But, Stackhouse teaches an electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising turn insulation 31 disposed over each successive turn (strap) 30 of the formed coil (c.7:12-16; Fig.2) and multiple layers of mica ground wall insulation (mica tape) 45 disposed over multiple turns of the coil 42 (c.7:66–c.8:2; Fig.3). Stackhouse further teaches slot corona suppression insulation (conducting tape) 21 disposed over the ground wall insulation 45 of slot cell sections of the coil and extending beyond ends of a core 40 of the machine (Fig.3), and voltage grading insulation (electrical grading coating) 15 disposed over at least a portion of the slot corona suppression insulation 21 and extending beyond the slot corona suppression insulation at ends of the coil (c.8:28-37; Fig.3).
PNG
media_image3.png
288
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stackhouse’s slot corona suppression insulation and voltage grading arrangement provides a non-linear stress grading that is simple, inexpensive, flexible so as to reduce cracking due to vibration (c.2:56-61) and corona resistant for systems up to at least 20 KV (c.3:23-28).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and further provide a slot corona suppression insulation and voltage grading arrangement as in Stackhouse since this would have been desirable to provide a non-linear stress grading that is simple, inexpensive, flexible so as to reduce cracking due to vibration and corona resistant for systems up to at least 20 KV.
Regarding claim 2, Reid teaches the slot cell sections (main regions) 28 of the coil are configured to be disposed in a slot cell (slots) of the electrical machine (c.3:27-29). Similarly, Stackhouse teaches slot cell sections 20, 22 of the coil are configured to be disposed in a slot cell (slots) of the electrical machine (c.6:20-21; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, in Reid the turn insulation comprises at least one layer of a mica-containing tape (c.6:28-32). Similarly, in Stackhouse the turn insulation 31 may comprise at least one layer of a mica-containing tape (c.1:15-19; c.7:23-27).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Reid’s mica-containing tape is applied in overlapping turns or wraps 40 (Fig.3A; c.4:8-10; c.6:29-31) and Stackhouse further teaches mica-containing tape wound in 1/2 lap overlap (i.e., 1/2-width overlap; Example 1, c.9:19-21; Example 2, c.11:55-59).
Regarding claim 9, Reid the mica ground wall insulation comprises at least one layer of mica-containing tape 38 (c.6:28-32). Similarly, in Stackhouse the ground wall insulation 45 comprises at least one layer of a mica-containing tape (c.7:66-c.8:2).
Regarding claim 13, Reid’s invention is for a “wide range of applications for electric motors, generators and similar rotating electrical machines” (c.1:11-13). Further, Stackhouse teaches the insulation system is disposed on high-voltage machines, in particular motors and generators operating in excess of 6kV (c.1:9-11), e.g., 35 kV (c.13:7-9). Thus, the combination teaches with sufficient specificity an insulation system “rated for an electrical machine operating at between approximately 6,900 and 16,000 volts.” Per MPEP 2131.03(II), prior art which teaches an overlapping range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 14, Reid teaches the electrical machine comprises a motor, and the coil comprises a stator coil 22 (abstract; c.3:25-31; Fig.1). Similarly, Stackhouse’s machine is a motor and the coil a stator coil (c.6:11-14; c.7:12-17).
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view of Lugosi et al. (US 4,260,924).
In the combination, Reid teaches individual conductors (coil segments) 32 (Fig.3A) comprising each turn, but does not further teach “a strand insulation disposed between the respective conductor [32] and the turn insulation [mica tapes 34/35].”
But, Lugosi teaches a conductor bar made up of a number of copper sub-conductors/ strands insulated from each other for the expected strand-to-strand voltage, for high efficiency (c.1:30-35 & 50-58; c.3:54-62).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and Stackhouse and provide strand insulation disposed between conductors as Lugosi teaches this was desirable for efficient operation at the expected strand-to-strand voltage.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view of Emery (US 7,427,712).
Reid and Stackhouse substantially teach the invention but does not further teach the mica-containing tape 34/35 comprises “at least approximately 160 gm/m2 of mica.”
But, Emery teaches a composite mica tape including mica paper of 160 gm/meter square to provide insulation for a high voltage coil 40 (c.5:44-47).
It would have been obvious to modify the mica-containing tape of Reid and Stackhouse with at least approximately 160 gm/ m2 of mica as Emery teaches this amount as suitable for providing insulation for a high voltage coil.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view Philofsky (US 3,823,334).
Reid teaches the ground wall insulation comprises multiple plies (“additional tapes” 38 disposed over multiple turns of the coil; c.4:8-10; Fig.3A). See also Stackhouse, c.7:37-38. However, the combination does not further teach the ground wall has “a total thickness of between approximately 0.022 inches and 0.165 inches”, per se.
But, Philofsky teaches a high voltage conductor including a ground wall insulation comprising multiple plies of high voltage mica tape of thickness 0.160 inch (c.4:47-52).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and Stackhouse and provide ground wall insulation within the claimed range as Philofsky teaches the thickness is suitable for insulating high voltage conductors.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view Lonseth et al. (US 4,001,616).
The combination teaches the ground wall insulation comprises two plies (Reid, c.4:8-10; Stackhouse, c.7:37-38) but not “a total thickness of approximately 0.011 inches”, per se.
But, Lonseth teaches a winding 11 for a dynamoelectric machine comprising parallel conductor strands 20 surrounded by a ground wall insulation comprising layers 22-23 of resin-bonded micaceous tapes of several mils in thickness (one mil is equal to 0.001 inch) and applied in a number of layers depending on the voltage they must withstand (c.3:39-45; Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and Stackhouse and provide a ground wall insulation having a total thickness of approximately 0.011 inches as Lonseth teaches the mica tape and number of turns is generally this range of thickness and a design choice dependent upon the voltage the tape must withstand.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view of Angell (US 6,559,384).
In the combination, in particular Stackhouse, the corona suppression insulation 21 comprises a fibrous material coated with a conducting varnish/resin loaded with conducting particles (c.6:26-34); but Stackhouse does not teach polyester fleece as the fibrous material, per se.
But, Angell teaches a conductive filler for use in electrical coils comprising a fibrous material 10 comprising a polyester fleece 22 impregnated with a conductive resin and providing a closed loop around the filler core 20 (c.3:16-34; Fig.1A).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and Stackhouse and provide a polyester fleece fibrous material per Angell to provide loading for a conductive resin.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view of Emery et al. (US 5,925,944).
Reid and Stackhouse do not further teach that “an application tension of the slot corona suppression insulation does not exceed an application tension of the ground wall insulation.”
But, Emery teaches a high voltage coil including a method for manufacture wherein a conducting tape is applied at a tension equal to or less than the tension used to apply ground wall tape to eliminate concentration of current flow in isolated points (c.4:35-38 & 60-61).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and Stackhouse and wrap the slot corona suppression insulation at a tension that does not exceed that of the ground wall insulation since Emery teaches this would have eliminated concentration of current flow in isolated points.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid and Stackhouse, further in view of Anderson et al. (US 3,662,199).
Reid and Stackhouse do not further teach the slot corona suppression insulation comprises a tape “applied with an approximate 3/4 to 1 inch overlap.”
Anderson teaches high voltage electrodynamic machine stator coils normally comprises tape of ¾”, 1” and 1-1/4” width overlapped over one-half a width of the preceding turn, i.e., approximately ¾ to 1 in. overlap, to provide reliability and continuity of service of the coils (c.1:18-45).
It would have been obvious to modify Reid and Stackhouse and provide corona suppression insulation tape within the claimed range as Anderson teaches these sizes are known to provide reliability and continuity of service for the coils.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,070 (‘the Patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the Application
An electrical machine coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation disposed over each successive turn of coil;
a multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape disposed over multiple turns of the coil, wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape;
slot corona suppression insulation disposed over the mica ground wall insulation and extending beyond ends of a core of an electrical machine;
voltage grading insulation disposed over at least a portion of the slot corona suppression insulation and extending beyond the slot corona suppression insulation at ends of the coil; and
armor insulation disposed over ends of the coil and at least a portion of coil leads,
wherein the turn insulation and the multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation extend over slot cell sections of the coil.
Claim 1 of the Patent
An electrical machine formed coil insulation system, comprising:
turn insulation disposed over each successive turn of the formed coil;
a mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape disposed over multiple turns of the coil wherein the multiple layers comprise an overlap of the mica-containing tape;
slot corona suppression insulation disposed over the ground wall insulation of slot cell sections of the coil and extending beyond ends of a core of the machine;
voltage grading insulation disposed over at least a portion of the slot corona suppression insulation and extending beyond the slot corona suppression insulation at ends of the coil; and
armor insulation disposed over ends of the coil and at least a portion of coil leads,
wherein the turn insulation and the multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation extend over the slot cell sections of the coil…
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of the Patent recites the slot cell sections of the coil are configured to be disposed in a slot cell of the electrical machine.
Regarding claim 3, claim 2 of the Patent recites wherein individual conductors of each turn comprises a strand insulation disposed between the respective conductor and the turn insulation.
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 of the Patent recites wherein the turn insulation comprises at least one layer of a mica-containing tape.
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of the Patent recites the mica-containing tape is wound in ½ lap width overlap
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of the Patent recites the mica ground wall insulation comprises at least 160 gm/m2 of mica.
Regarding claim 7, claim 4 of the Patent recites the ground wall insulation comprises multiple plies and a total thickness of between approximately 0.022 inches and 0.165 inches.
Regarding claim 8, claim 5 of the Patent recites the ground wall insulation comprises two plies and a total thickness of approximately 0.011 inches.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of the Patent recites a multi-layer of mica ground wall insulation comprising multiple layers of a mica-containing tape
Regarding claim 10, claim 6 of the Patent recites the slot corona suppression insulation comprises a polyester fleece impregnated with a conductive material loaded resin.
Regarding claim 11, claim 7 of the Patent recites an application tension of the slot corona suppression insulation does not exceed an application tension of the ground wall insulation.
Regarding claim 12, claim 8 of the Patent recites the slot corona suppression insulation comprises a tape applied with an approximate ¾ to 1 inch overlap.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of the Patent recites the insulation system is rated for an electrical machine operating at between approximately 6,900 and 16,000 volts.
Regarding claim 14, claim 9 of the Patent recites the electrical machine comprises a motor, and the formed coil comprises a stator coil.
Conclusion
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 April 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834