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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2 April 2026 regarding the Claim Objections of the previous Office Action are persuasive, the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment of 2 April 2026 has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections of the previous Office Action.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 April 2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Beiselle does not explicitly disclose an insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 1800C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1. First, Martenssen teaches an insulative carrier, which inherently has a thermal rating. While one could argue that the skilled artisan would be aware of IEC standard IEC 60216-1, Beiselle is relied up to explicitly teach IEC standard IEC 60216-1, specifically class H, which is a thermal rating above 180C. Thus, when the thermal rating of the insulative carrier is modified to be in accordance of IEC standard IEC 60216-1 class H, as disclosed by Beiselle, this limitation is known.
Applicant further argues that the skilled artisan would not find it obvious to have the surface resistivity of the conductive layer be between 1.5 and 10 ohms. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) is cited in rejecting this limitation. It is pointed out that the claim merely recites “a conductive layer having a surface resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square disposed on the insulative carrier.” The claim is silent as to whether or not a ground connection is present or any reason why there would not need to be one. Regardless of the subject matter discussed, In re Aller 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) states “where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art”. In this case, it is maintained that a resistance is a general condition taught by Martenssen. Thus, as the claim is currently written, the rejection is maintained. If Applicant believes there are other structural elements that further distinguish this limitation from the prior art, they should be included in the claim.
Applicant lastly argues, regarding claim 9, that Brockschmidt does not explicitly disclose “a semi-conductive layer overlying the conductive shield layer.” Applicant’s arguments reference inner potential grading (IPG) 10 as not being a conductive shield. However, Martenssen is relied upon to teach the conductive shield. Elements 7 and 10 of Brockschmidt are akin to the conductive shield layer in that they are the conductive element. Further, an insulative, or shielding, layer between 10 and 16 is clearly shown in Fig. 1 of Brockschmidt (see paragraph 0004, which teaches that 16 overlays the main insulation). Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenssen (EP 1 903 662 A1), in view of Beisele et al. (“Beisele”; US 2018/0171101).
Regarding claim 1: Martenssen discloses an electric winding assembly (4, Fig. 3), comprising:
a conductor core (7) having a first end and an opposing second end;
an insulation layer (8) overlying the conductor core; and
a conductive shield layer (9, 10, 11) overlying the insulation layer, the conductive shield layer comprising:
an insulative carrier (9), the insulative carrier circumferentially surrounding the insulation layer (shown in Fig. 3), and
a conductive layer (10, 11) having a surface resistivity disposed on the insulative carrier (paragraphs 0029-0030).
Martenssen does not explicitly disclose the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 and a conductive layer having a surface resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square inch.
However, Beisele discloses the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 (paragraph 0004, and paragraph 0087 teaches utilizing the material to encapsulate a stator winding).
And, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the insulative carrier of Martenssen to have the thermal rating and IEC standard disclosed by Beisele in order to better protect the winding and to have the resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square inch in order to optimally design the system to meet specific parameters.
Regarding claim 2: Martenssen modified by Beisele discloses the material has a thermal rating, in accordance with IEC Standard IEC 60216-1, but does not explicitly disclose a thermal rating greater than 240C.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermal rating of Martenssen to have the thermal rating over 240C in order to better protect the winding in high temperature situations.
Regarding claim 3: Martenssen discloses the conductive layer (10, 11) is disposed on a periphery of the insulative carrier (9) to circumferentially surround the insulative carrier (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4: Martenssen discloses the conductive layer (10, 11) is further dispersed within the insulative carrier (9, as stated above this claim is unclear).
Regarding claim 5: Martenssen discloses the conductive layer is formed from one of a metal or carbon (paragraph 0027, in this case metal).
Regarding claim 6: Martenssen discloses a thickness of the insulative carrier, but does not explicitly disclose the thickness is in a range of 1-8 thousandths of an inch.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of Martenssen to be within the claimed range in order to optimally design the system.
Regarding claim 7: Martenssen discloses a thickness of the conductive layer, but does not explicitly disclose the thickness is less than 1.5 micron.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of Martenssen to be within the claimed range in order to optimally design the system.
Regarding claim 11: Martenssen discloses an electric machine (Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (inherent);
a stator (1) within the housing, the stator having an annular shape that defines a central bore, the stator defining a set of slots (3) circumferentially disposed around the central bore (as shown in Fig. 1);
a rotor held within the central bore of the stator, the rotor coupled to a shaft defining a rotational axis, the rotor configured to rotate relative to the stator around the rotational axis (not shown, but disclosed in paragraph 0025); and
a stator winding (4) extending through the slots of the stator within the housing, the stator winding including a conductor core (7, Fig. 3), an insulation layer (8) surrounding the conductor core, and
a conductive shield layer (9, 10, 11) circumferentially surrounding the insulation layer, the stator winding including an in-slot portion (within 5, Fig. 3) within the slots of the stator and an end-winding portion outside of the slots (shown in Fig. 3),
wherein the conductive shield layer (9, 10, 11) overlies the insulation layer (8), the conductive shield layer comprises an insulative carrier (9) circumferentially surrounds the insulation layer, and a conductive layer (10, 11) is disposed on the insulative carrier (shown in Fig. 3).
Martenssen does not explicitly disclose the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC Standard IEC 60216-1, and the conductive layer having a surface resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square inch.
However, Beisele discloses the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 (paragraph 0004, and paragraph 0087 teaches utilizing the material to encapsulate a stator winding).
And, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the insulative carrier of Martenssen to have the thermal rating and IEC standard disclosed by Beisele in order to better protect the winding and to have the resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square inch in order to optimally design the system to meet specific parameters.
Regarding claim 12: Martenssen modified by Beisele discloses the material has a thermal rating, in accordance with IEC Standard IEC 60216-1, but does not explicitly disclose a thermal rating greater than 240C.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermal rating of Martenssen to have the thermal rating over 240C in order to better protect the winding in high temperature situations.
Regarding claim 13: Martenssen discloses the conductive layer is formed from one of a metal or carbon (paragraph 0027, in this case metal).
Regarding claim 14: Martenssen discloses a thickness of the insulative carrier, but does not explicitly disclose the thickness is in a range of 1-8 thousandths of an inch.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of Martenssen to be within the claimed range in order to optimally design the system.
Regarding claim 15: Martenssen discloses a thickness of the conductive layer, but does not explicitly disclose the thickness is less than 1.5 micron.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of Martenssen to be within the claimed range in order to optimally design the system.
Regarding claim 18: Martenssen discloses a method of assembling a stator (1), the method comprising:
forming a conductor core (7, Fig. 3);
overlying the conductor core with an insulation layer (8);
overlying the insulation layer with a conductive shield layer (9, 10, 11) having a conductively (9) connected terminal end to define a stator winding (4), the conductive shield layer comprising an insulative carrier (9) formed from a material having a thermal rating circumferentially surrounding the insulation layer and a conductive layer (10, 11) having a surface resistivity disposed on the insulative carrier (as shown in Fig. 3); and
winding the stator winding about a post (forming each slot) of the stator (as shown in Fig. 1).
Martenssen does not explicitly disclose the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC Standard IEC 60216-1, and the conductive layer having a surface resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square inch.
However, Beisele discloses the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 (paragraph 0004, and paragraph 0087 teaches utilizing the material to encapsulate a stator winding).
And, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the insulative carrier of Martenssen to have the thermal rating and IEC standard disclosed by Beisele in order to better protect the winding and to have the resistivity between 1.5 and 10 ohms per square inch in order to optimally design the system to meet specific parameters.
Regarding claim 20: Martenssen modified by Beisele discloses the material has a thermal rating, in accordance with IEC Standard IEC 60216-1, but does not explicitly disclose a thermal rating greater than 240C.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermal rating of Martenssen to have the thermal rating over 240C in order to better protect the winding in high temperature situations.
Claims 8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenssen and Beisele as applied to claims 1, 11, and 18 above, and further in view of Kosako (US 2022/0001633).
Regarding claim 8: Martenssen discloses the material but does not explicitly disclose the material comprises one of a polyetheretherketone material, an aramid fiber tape, or a ceramic fiber tape.
However, Kosako discloses the material comprises one of a polyetheretherketone material, an aramid fiber tape, or a ceramic fiber tape (paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Martenssen to be polyetheretherketone, as disclosed by Kosako, in order to better reinforce the assembly (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 17: Martenssen discloses the material but does not explicitly disclose the material comprises one of a polyetheretherketone material, an aramid fiber tape, or a ceramic fiber tape.
However, Kosako discloses the material comprises one of a polyetheretherketone material, an aramid fiber tape, or a ceramic fiber tape (paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Martenssen to be polyetheretherketone, as disclosed by Kosako, in order to better reinforce the assembly (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 19: Martenssen discloses the material but does not explicitly disclose the material comprises one of a polyetheretherketone material, an aramid fiber tape, or a ceramic fiber tape.
However, Kosako discloses the material comprises one of a polyetheretherketone material, an aramid fiber tape, or a ceramic fiber tape (paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Martenssen to be polyetheretherketone, as disclosed by Kosako, in order to better reinforce the assembly (paragraph 0031).
Claims 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martenssen and Beisele as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Brockschmidt et al. (“Brockschmidt”; US 2019/0131842).
Regarding claim 9: Martenssen discloses the conductive shield layer but does not explicitly disclose a semi-conductive layer overlying the conductive shield layer.
However, Brockschmidt discloses a semi-conductive layer (16, Fig. 1) overlying the conductive shield layer (7, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductive shield layer of Martenssen to have the semi-conductive layer of Brockschmidt in order to suppress creeping discharges (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 10: Martenssen modified by Brockschmidt disclose the semi-conductive layer, Brockschmidt further discloses the semi-conductive layer comprises Silicon Carbide (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 16: Martenssen discloses the conductive shield layer but does not explicitly disclose a semi-conductive layer overlying the conductive shield layer.
However, Brockschmidt discloses a semi-conductive layer (16, Fig. 1) overlying the conductive shield layer (7, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductive shield layer of Martenssen to have the semi-conductive layer of Brockschmidt in order to suppress creeping discharges (paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights