Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/637,575

STATOR COIL INSULATION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Examiner
ELNAKIB, AHMED
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
447 granted / 568 resolved
+10.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 568 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-15 of U.S. Application No. 18/637,575 filed on 04/17/2024 are presented for examination. 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claims 7-8 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adra (US 20150108855; Hereinafter, “Adra”). Regarding claim 1: Adra discloses a stator coil (45) comprising: a conductor (wires 46) wound into a plurality of turns (abstract) having substantially straight sides (48; fig. 4) and opposing curved ends (49); and insulating material (enamel insulation; para [0030]) provided between the conductor turns (around each of the wires) and wound into the turns with the conductor (since the enamel is on the conductor, it is wound into the turns with the conductor). Regarding claim 2/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the conductor (wires 46) comprises a plurality of strands (fig. 7) of conductive material (copper; para [0030]). Regarding claim 3/2/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses that the conductor is a bundle (the bundles of individual wires 46; fig. 7) of the plurality of strands (fig. 7). Regarding claim 4/3/2/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses that the plurality of strands are twisted together to form the bundle (At least a portion of the group of wires is twisted, and the portion of the group of wires has between approximately 1 and 5 twists per turn; abstract and claim 1). Regarding claim 12: Adra discloses a method of forming a stator coil (45), the method comprising: winding a conductor (conductors 46) in a plurality of turns defined by opposing substantially straight sides (48) and opposing curved ends (49); and winding an insulating material (enamel; para [0030]) located below or above (since the enamel on the outer circumference of the wire, it is well understood it is above and below the conductor) the conductor together with the conductor (since the enamel is on the conductor, it is wound into the turns with the conductor). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adra in view of Sivasubramaniam et al. (US 2010/0096944; Hereinafter, “Sivasubramaniam”). Regarding claim 5/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the conductor is a Litz wire. Sivasubramaniam teaches forming the conductor is a Litz wire (para [0001]to reduce the losses and to reduce back emf (para [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the conductor of Adra as litz wire as taught by Sivasubramaniam to reduce the losses and to reduce back emf (para [0017]). Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adra in view of Hishida et al. (US 2020/0195075; Hereinafter, “Hishida”). Regarding claim 6/1, and 7/6-8/6: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the insulating material is in the form of a flat tape and the flat tape is provided below the conductor during winding. Hishida discloses the insulating material (71, or 72 or 73) is in the form of a flat tape (Fig. 15B, 15C, and 16) and the flat tape is provided below the conductor during winding (below the conductor in every turn). Although Hishida teaches the limitation of “during winding”, the examiner points out the limitation of “during winding” is a product-by-process limitation that has no patentable weight in a product claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coil of Adra with the insulating material is in the form of a flat tape and the flat tape is provided below the conductor during winding as disclosed by Hishida to further increase the insulation between the conductors, evading shorts, thus increase safety and increase service life of the stator. Claims 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adra in view of Azeyangi Toru et al. (JP 2015177598; Hereinafter, “Toru”). Regarding claim 9/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the insulating material is a U-shaped strip sized to receive the conductor and extend from below the conductor and up the sides of the conductor. Toru discloses insulating material is a U-shaped strip (70; fig. 6) sized to receive the conductor (of coil 32) and extend from below the conductor and up the sides of the conductor (see for example sections B and C below). PNG media_image1.png 534 475 media_image1.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coil of Adra with the insulating material is a U-shaped strip sized to receive the conductor and extend from below the conductor and up the sides of the conductor as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, evading shorts, thus increase safety and increase service life of the stator. Regarding claim 10/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the insulating material is spliced at locations corresponding to the curved ends. Toru discloses that the insulating material (700A; fig. 7A, 7B; para [0046-0053]) is spliced at locations corresponding to the curved ends (annotated fig. 7A, 7B below). PNG media_image2.png 338 633 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coil of Adra with the insulating material is spliced at locations corresponding to the curved ends as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, without the insulator being under stress or being torn. Regarding claim 13/12: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 12 but does not disclose forming cuts in the insulating material at locations corresponding to the curved ends. Toru discloses forming cuts in the insulating material at locations corresponding to the curved ends (see the “splice” in the annotated fig. 7A, 7B above). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the coil of Adra with insulating material with cuts in the insulating material at locations corresponding to the curved ends as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, without the insulator being under stress or being torn. Regarding claim 14/12: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 12 but does not disclose the insulating material forms side flanges extending beyond the conductor width and the method further comprising pressing the side flanges against the sides of the wound coil. Toru discloses the insulating material forms side flanges extending beyond the conductor width (see sections B, and C) and the method further comprising pressing the side flanges against the sides of the wound coil (see for example sections G, and D). PNG media_image1.png 534 475 media_image1.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the coil of Adra with the insulating material forms side flanges extending beyond the conductor width and the method further comprising pressing the side flanges against the sides of the wound coil as disclosed by Toru to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, evading shorts, thus increase safety and increase service life of the stator. Claims 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adra in view of Coupart et al. (US 2002/0047425; Hereinafter, “Coupart”). Regarding claim 11/1: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the coil further comprising further insulating material provided around the wound coil. Coupart discloses further insulating material (impregnating resin; para [0072]) provided around the wound coil (seen in fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coil of Adra with insulating material provided around the wound coil as disclosed by Coupart to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, evading shorts, thus increase safety and increase service life of the stator. Regarding claim 15/12: Adra discloses the limitations of claim 12 but does not disclose providing additional insulating material over the completed coil. Coupart discloses providing additional insulating material (impregnating resin; para [0072]) over the completed coil (seen in fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coil of Adra with additional insulating material over the completed coil as disclosed by Coupart to further increase the insulation between the coils or the coil and core, evading shorts, thus increase safety and increase service life of the stator. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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, 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. /AHMED ELNAKIB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601373
REFRIGERANT COMPRESSOR INCLUDING GROOVED AUXILIARY BEARING INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597816
ROTOR, PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR AND POWERTRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584521
HYBRID AIRFOIL BEARING WITH ACTIVE DAMPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587064
ELECTRIC MOTOR SYSTEM, TURBO COMPRESSOR, AND REFRIGERATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587071
DRIVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+8.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 568 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month