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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pages 7 – 8 of the REMARKS, “However, Ikeda does not describe a filler region achieving a ratio of voids occupying a cross-sectional area of the assembled conductor to be 0.16% or less. Ikeda merely describes that "An outer insulating layer coats the plurality of the assembled strands, and the strand insulating layer has a void inside. A ratio of the voids is preferably between 0.1% and 80%, and more preferably between 0.10% and 50%" (see paragraph Nos. [0012] and [0013] of Ikeda). Therefore, the ratio of the voids of Ikeda is not the claimed "ratio of voids occupying a cross-sectional area of the assembled conductor" (i.e., voids existing in a space between the strands adjacent to each other and a space between the strands and the insulating layer) but is instead the ratio inside the strand insulating layer. It is common technical knowledge in the field of the present invention that even when the stranded wire is compression-molded, a slight void (gap) is generated between the strands (see paragraph [0005] of the present specification), and the results of Comparative Examples 1 and 2 support this understanding in the art (see Table 1 of the specification). That is, the ratio of voids shows 0.98% and 1.01%, respectively, without the filler region for Comparative Examples 1 and 2. By comparison, in the present invention which has the filler region, the ratio of voids is critically reduced as shown in Table 1 of the specification. Even if the strands with an insulating layer having a void ratio of 0.1 to 80% as described in Ikeda are used and assembled, the ratio of voids occupying a cross-sectional area of the assembled conductor never reaches the claimed range of "0.16% or less" without the filler region”. The Office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a filler region achieving a ratio of voids occupying a cross-sectional area of the assembled conductor to be 0.16% or less) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). The claims describe “voids occupying a cross-sectional area of the assembled conductor” and do not specify that the voids must be occupying the filler region.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, and 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2020/0126688 A1) in view of Yamoto (US 2019/0206590 A1) and Tomizawa (US 2020/0365294 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikeda (US 2020/0126688 A1) discloses an insulated wire (Fig 1,2,4), comprising: an assembled conductor (10) (obtained by) a plurality of strands (11); an insulating layer (14) coating an outer periphery of the assembled conductor; wherein each of the plurality of strands (11) has a strand insulating layer (13), including at least one kind of polyamideimide ([0049]) or polyimide ([0049]), on the outer peripheral surface of a conductive wire (11), wherein the insulating layer (14) coating the outer periphery of the assembled conductor includes polyetheretherketone ([0051]), and wherein a ratio of voids (see Fig 2B) occupying a cross-sectional area (as seen in Fig 2B, this is a cross-sectional area of the assembled conductor as 13 is within the assembly of Fig 1) of the assembled conductor is 0.16% or less ([0058] “a volume ratio of the voids 8 inside the strand insulating layer 13 after being collapsed is preferably between 0.1% and 80%”, “volume ratio of the voids 8 can be calculated from an area ratio of the voids 8 that can be found by obtaining a several enlarged images of cross sections”; note that this claimed area is not structurally limited in the claim language).
Ikeda does not disclose an assembled conductor obtained by twisting a plurality of strands; and a filler region that fills a space between the strands and a space between the strands and the insulating layer and includes a thermoplastic resin, wherein the filler region includes one or more of polyetherimide and polyphenylsulfone.
Yamoto (US 2019/0206590 A1) discloses an insulated wire (Fig 3), comprising: an assembled conductor (as seen in Fig 3) comprising a plurality of strands (21,22; [0045]); an insulating layer (25) coating an outer periphery of the assembled conductor; and a filler region (region or portion or area occupied by 23 in Fig 3; note that this claimed region has not been structurally limited) that fills a space between the strands (21,22) and a space between the strands (21,22) and the insulating layer (25) and includes a thermoplastic resin ([0061-0066]), wherein each of the plurality of strands (21,22) has a strand insulating layer (22A), including at least one kind of polyamideimide ([0056]) or polyimide ([0055]), on the outer peripheral surface of a conductive wire (21), wherein the filler region (region with 23) includes one or more of polyetherimide ([0065]) and polyphenylsulfone ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as disclosed by Ikeda, comprising a filler region that fills a space between the strands and a space between the strands and the insulating layer and includes a thermoplastic resin, wherein the filler region includes one or more of polyetherimide and polyphenylsulfone as taught by Yamoto, in order to provide adhesion, prevent easy hardness, provide a layer without a melting point, and exhibit strong fixing strength (Yamoto, [0061-0066]).
Tomizawa (US 2020/0365294 A1) teaches of an insulated wire (Fig 3-4), comprising: an assembled conductor obtained by twisting ([0022,0030,0059,0064]) a plurality of strands (11,13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Ikeda in view of Yamoto, wherein assembled conductor obtained by twisting a plurality of strands as taught by Tomizawa, in order to prevent strand disintegration (Tomizawa, [0022,0030,0059,0064]).
The Claim states a “obtained by twisting” but “obtained by twisting” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the layers are formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of twisting, and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 2, Ikeda further discloses the insulated wire (Fig 1,4) according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of voids occupying a cross-sectional area ([0058] “a volume ratio of the voids 8 inside the strand insulating layer 13 after being collapsed is preferably between 0.1% and 80%”, “volume ratio of the voids 8 can be calculated from an area ratio of the voids 8 that can be found by obtaining a several enlarged images of cross sections”; note that this claimed area is not structurally limited in the claim language) of the assembled conductor is 0.15% or less ([0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Yamoto further teaches the insulated wire (Fig 3) according to claim 1, wherein the filler region (region with 23) includes polyetherimide ([0061-0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikeda further discloses the insulated wire (Fig 1,4) according to claim 1, wherein the insulating layer (14) coating the outer periphery of the assembled conductor further includes one or more of polyphenylene sulfide ([0051]), polyethylene terephthalate ([0051]), 66 nylon, polyamideimide, and polyimide ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ikeda further discloses the insulated wire (Fig 1,4) according to claim 1, wherein the assembled conductor (10) has a center strand (central 11 in Fig 1), and an average thickness of a filler region (region between central 11 and neighboring 11 above or below; note that this claimed region or area or portion is not structurally limited nor structurally defined in the claim language) on an outer periphery of the center strand is thicker than (central 11 would have two layers of 13 whereas the outer 11 has singular layer of 13 adjacent 14) an average thickness of a filler region (region or portion of 13 contacting 14; note that this claimed region or area or portion is not structurally limited nor structurally defined in the claim language) other than the filler region on the outer periphery of the center strand.
Regarding Claim 8, Ikeda further discloses the insulated wire (Fig 1,4) according to claim 1, wherein the filler region is formed by a filler layer (layer of 13) coated on the outer periphery of the strand (11) (flowing by heating [0053,0075]), and a film thickness of the filler layer (13) is 3.0 to 15 μm ([0050] 0.1 μm to 10 μm).
The Claim states a “flowing by heating” but “flowing by heating” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the layers are formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of flowing by heating, and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 9, Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Ikeda further teaches the insulated wire (Fig 8A; in the same publication; provided for reasons to control effects of eddy currents, meet fill factor, and for usage within a motor [0003-0006,0027-0028]) according to claim 1, wherein the assembled conductor is formed by twisting (as taught by Tomizawa) 7 (see Fig 8A showing seven strands 11) to 37 strands.
The Claim states a “formed by twisting” but “formed by twisting” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the layers are formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of twisting, and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 10, Ikeda further discloses a coil (Fig 4; [0059-0063] “coil”), using the insulated wire (10) according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Ikeda further discloses a rotating electrical machine (Fig 1,4; [0003] “rotational frequency of the motor”), comprising the coil (Fig 4; [0059-0063] “coil”) according to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12, Ikeda further discloses an electrical or electronic equipment (Fig 1,4; [0003] “rotational frequency of the motor”), comprising the coil (Fig 4; [0059-0063] “coil”) according to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13, Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Yamoto further teaches the insulated wire (Fig 3) according to claim 1, wherein the filler region (region with 23) includes polyphenylsulfone ([0061-0066]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2020/0126688 A1) in view of Yamoto (US 2019/0206590 A1) and Tomizawa (US 2020/0365294 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (US 2018/0254120 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the insulated wire according to claim 1, wherein when a cross-sectional shape of the assembled conductor is rectangular, a width of the rectangle is 1.0 to 5.0 mm and a thickness of the rectangle is 0.4 to 3.0 mm, and when the cross-sectional shape of the assembled conductor is circular, an outer diameter of the circle is 0.25 to 2.0 mm, and wherein a thickness of the insulating layer coating the outer periphery of the assembled conductor is 20 to 250 μm.
Saito (US 2018/0254120 A1) teaches of an insulated wire (Fig 1), wherein when a cross-sectional shape of the assembled conductor is rectangular ([0050] “rectangular”), a width of the rectangle is 1.0 to 5.0 mm ([0050]) and a thickness of the rectangle is 0.4 to 3.0 mm ([0050]), and when the cross-sectional shape of the assembled conductor is circular, an outer diameter of the circle is 0.25 to 2.0 mm, and wherein a thickness of an insulating layer (14) coating the outer periphery of the assembled conductor is 20 to 250 μm ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa, wherein when a cross-sectional shape of the assembled conductor is rectangular, a width of the rectangle is 1.0 to 5.0 mm and a thickness of the rectangle is 0.4 to 3.0 mm, and when the cross-sectional shape of the assembled conductor is circular, an outer diameter of the circle is 0.25 to 2.0 mm, and wherein a thickness of the insulating layer coating the outer periphery of the assembled conductor is 20 to 250 μm as taught by Saito, in order to increase a space factor, provide sufficient fixing strength, and provide densification (Saito, [0048,0079,0108]) and furthermore discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, in order to increase a space factor, provide sufficient fixing strength, provide densification, provide a desired conduction and provide a desired insulation thickness to meet environmental protections. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 8 [0013]; pages 12-13 [0023], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 7, Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the insulated wire according to claim 1, wherein a film thickness of the strand insulating layer is 0.5 to 30 μm.
Saito (US 2018/0254120 A1) teaches of an insulated wire (Fig 2), wherein a strand (21) has an insulating layer (22) including a thermosetting resin ([0081]) on an outer periphery of a conductive wire (21), a film thickness of the strand insulating layer is 0.5 to 30 μm ([0088]), and the thermosetting resin includes at least one kind of polyamideimide ([0082]), polyimide ([0082]), polyester ([0082]), and polyurethane ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Ikeda in view of Yamoto and Tomizawa, wherein a film thickness of the strand insulating layer is 0.5 to 30 μm, as taught by Saito, in order to increase a space factor, provide sufficient fixing strength, and provide densification (Saito, [0048,0079,0108]) and furthermore discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, in order to increase a space factor, provide sufficient fixing strength, provide densification, provide a desired conduction and provide a desired insulation thickness to meet environmental protections. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 8 [0013]; pages 9-1 [0016-0020], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
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 ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights