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 22 July 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. The IEC standard itself is now cited to teach this limitation.
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. Applicant specifically argues “Once again, Applicant asserts that the range specified in claim 1 obviates the need to include periodic ground connections in the overhang portion of the coil to minimize voltage potentials to avoid partial discharge is avoided.” Once again, 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.” While Applicant may have certain benefits to using the claimed range, nothing is recited in the claim(s) to reflect this. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant questions “If routine optimization were all that was needed to arrive at the range specified in claim 1, then why would Martenssen include the ground connections in the first place?” Then stating, “The lower surface resistivity might result in adverse effects given the potential for greater current.” Perhaps Martenssen’s desired result is to generate greater current. As this is a result effective variable, the skilled artisan would manipulate it based on the desired result.
Applicant lastly argues, regarding claim 9, that Brockschmidt does not explicitly disclose “a semi-conductive layer overlying the conductive shield layer.” A new reference is used to teach this claim.
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 IEC (Internation Standard 60216-1 Editon 7.0, IEC, attached, this is the most recent edition, as it is the only version the Office has access to, note that Edition 6.0 was released in 2012).
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, IEC discloses the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 (Section 5.5, page 12, further the fact that the standard is recited in the claim in the first place shows that Applicant is aware of the standard).
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 IEC 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 IEC 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, IEC discloses the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 (Section 5.5, page 12, further the fact that the standard is recited in the claim in the first place shows that Applicant is aware of the standard).
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 IEC 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 IEC 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, IEC discloses the insulative carrier formed from a material having a thermal rating greater than 180C, in accordance with IEC standard IEC 60216-1 (Section 5.5, page 12, further the fact that the standard is recited in the claim in the first place shows that Applicant is aware of the standard).
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 IEC 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 IEC 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 IEC 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 IEC as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kempen et al. (“Kempen”; EP 1 995 850 A1, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 9: Martenssen discloses the conductive shield layer but does not explicitly disclose a semi-conductive layer overlying the conductive shield layer.
However, Kempen discloses a semi-conductive layer (18, Fig. 3) overlying the conductive shield layer (24).
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 Kempen to have the semi-conductive layer of Kempen in order to suppress creeping discharges.
Regarding claim 10: Martenssen modified by Kempen disclose the semi-conductive layer, Kempen further discloses the semi-conductive layer comprises Silicon Carbide (second full paragraph on page 2 of the translation).
Regarding claim 16: Martenssen discloses the conductive shield layer but does not explicitly disclose a semi-conductive layer overlying the conductive shield layer.
However, Kempen discloses a semi-conductive layer (18, Fig. 3) overlying the conductive shield layer (24).
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 Kempen to have the semi-conductive layer of Kempen in order to suppress creeping discharges.
Conclusion
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