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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 1, the abstract recites the terms “ Disclosed herein is ……”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms to provide the abstract with proper language.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10-17, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstoger et al (Pat Num 2019/0131037, herein referred to as Hochstoger) in view of Allcock (Pub Num 2020/0024393). Hochstoger discloses an insulated conductor (Figs 1-3c), which overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art and ensures good adhesion between the insulating coating and the electrical conductor (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Hochstoger discloses an insulated conductor (2, Figs 2a & 3a) comprising an electrical conductor (1) capable of having an electrical potential difference applied across it to induce flow of electrical current (voltage applied to the wire induces current flow along its length), wherein the conductor (2) comprises a layer of insulating polymeric compound (3) provide on its surface (Figs 2a & 3a), wherein the polymeric compound may comprising a polymeric material comprising polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK) polymer (Paragraph 22), wherein the polymeric insulating compound (3) may comprise a solid particular material (i.e. fibers, fillers, Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 2, Hochstoger discloses that the PAEK polymer may be polyether ether ketone (PEEK, Paragraph 22). With respect to claim 5, Hochstoger discloses an insulated conductor (2, Figs 2a & 3a) comprising an electrical conductor (1) capable of having an electrical potential difference applied across it to induce flow of electrical current (voltage applied to the wire induces current flow along its length), wherein the conductor (2) comprises a layer of insulating polymeric compound (3) provide on its surface (Figs 2a & 3a), wherein the polymeric compound may comprising a polymeric material comprising polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK) polymer (Paragraph 22). With respect to claim 6, Hochstoger discloses that the solid particular materials may be fillers (Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 10, Hochstoger discloses that the insulating polymeric compound (3) may have an average thickness of 2-500µm (i.e. 10-1000 µm, Paragraph 34). With respect to claim 11, Hochstoger teaches an insulated conductor (2, Fig 2a & 3a), wherein the insulating polymeric material may be made of PAEK in the form of PEEK (Paragraph 22) comprising filler material (Paragraph 32), and comprises a wire (1) that may have a circular (Fig 3a) or rectangular cross section (Fig 2a). With respect to claims 12 and 16, Hochstoger discloses that the insulated conductor (2) may be utilized as a magnet wire wound around a stator coil of an electrical device, such as an electrical motor (Paragraphs 31 & 87). With respect to claim 13, Hochstoger discloses that the polymeric material (3) is applied directly to the surface of the electrical conductor (1, Paragraph 40). With respect to claim 19, Hochstoger discloses that the insulating polymeric compound (3) may have an average thickness of 2-300µm (i.e. 10-1000 µm, Paragraph 34).
While Hochstoger discloses the insulated electrical conductor comprising an insulating compound comprising PEEK (Paragraph 22), which may comprise fillers (Paragraph 32), Hochstoger doesn’t necessarily disclose the PAEK including a repeat unit of general formula I
O-Ph-(O-Ph)t1-CO-Ph(O-Ph)w1-(CO-PH)v1 (Formula I)
wherein tl and wl independently represent 0 or 1 and v1 represents 0, 1 or 2; and wherein the polymeric insulating compound also comprise a dispersed phase of solid particulate material (claim 1), nor an insulated electrical conductor, wherein tl=1, vl=0 and wl=0 to form a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (claim 2), nor the polymeric material having a crystallinity of at least 25% and less than 40% (claim 4), nor the PAEK being a copolymer comprising repeat units of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
158
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least 95 mol% of the copolymer repeat units are repeat units of formula (a) and of formula (b); wherein the repeat units (a) and (b) have a molar ratio (a):(b) from 55:45 to 80:20; and wherein the PAEK has a melt viscosity, MV, from 0.35 to 0.55 kNsm-2 as measured using capillary rheometry at 400°C at a shear rate of 1000s-1 by extrusion through a tungsten carbide capillary die of 0.5mm diameter and 8.0 mm length (claim 5), nor the solid particulate material is selected from barium sulphate, calcium sulphate, chromium oxide, glass fibre, iron oxide, magnesium carbonate, magnesium oxide, mica, silica, silicon carbide, silicon dioxide (quartz), silicon nitride, sodium silicate, titanium dioxide, talc, zinc oxide, zirconia, boron nitride, wollastonite, aluminum nitride, or mixtures thereof (claim 6), nor the solid particulate material is present at a fill level of from 0.1 to 35 wt% (claim 7), nor a method of manufacturing an insulated electrical conductor comprising the steps of: a) blending together a source of flowable polymeric material with the solid particulate material to form a random blend; and b) exposing the random blend to shear forces; and c) simultaneously or subsequently laying down the blend onto the surface of an electrical conductor (claim 14), nor the method wherein
step c) is carried out simultaneously by a process of extrusion (claim 15), nor the solid particulate material is present at a fill level of from 1 to 20 wt% (claim 17).
Allcock teaches a PAEK polymeric composition that has enhanced mechanical properties, a lighter color and lower incidence of gels compared to prior art PAEK (Paragraph 101), and may be utilized as a wire coating (i.e. insulated conductor, Paragraph 392). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Allcock teaches an insulating polymeric compound comprising polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK, Paragraph 131) polymer including a repeat unit of general formula I
O-Ph-(O-Ph)t1-CO-Ph(O-Ph)w1-(CO-PH)v1 (Formula I)
PNG
media_image2.png
66
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
34
38
media_image3.png
Greyscale
=Ph (Page 8, see formula I) and wherein t1 and w1 independently represent 0 or 1 and v1 represents 0, 1, or 2 (Paragraphs 142-143), and wherein the polymeric insulating compound also comprises a dispersed phase of solid particulate material (Paragraphs 173-176). With respect to claim 2, Allcock teaches that t1=1, v1=0, and w1=0 to form polyether ether ketone (PEEK, Paragraphs 143-144). With respect to claim 4, Allcock teaches that the polymeric material may has a crystallinity of at least 25% and less than 40% (i.e. 25-35%, Paragraph 66). With respect to claim 5, Allcock teaches a polymeric compound comprising a polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK, Paragraph 131) polymer including a repeat unit of general formula a & b
(a)
PNG
media_image1.png
158
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b)
wherein at least 95 mol % of the copolymer repeat units (i.e. at least 95 mol% incorporates the claimed range, Paragraph 75) are repeat units of formula (a) and of formula (b) and wherein the repeat units (a) and (b) have a molar ratio of 55:45 to 80:20 (i.e. (a) may be at least 60 mol% and (b) may be at least 20-40%, therefore 60:40-80:20 may be the range of (a):(b) and wherein the PAEK has a melt viscosity, MV, from 0.35 to 0.55 kNsm-2 (i.e. at least 0.15 kNsm-2 , Paragraph 172), as measured using capillary rheometry at 400°C at a shear rate of 1000s-1 by extrusion through a tungsten carbide capillary die of 0.5mm diameter and 3.175 mm length (Paragraph 172). With respect to claim 6, Allcock teaches that the solid particulate material is selected from glass fiber, mica, silica, talc, calcium sulfate, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide, magnesium carbonate, and barium sulfate (Paragraphs 175-176). With respect to claim 7, Allcock teaches that the solid particulate material is present at a fill level from 0.1 to 35% (i.e. at least 20%, which is incorporated in claim range, Paragraph 178). With respect to claims 14-15, Allcock teaches a method of manufacturing an insulated electrical conductor (Paragraph 392) comprising blending together a source of flowable polymeric material with solid particulate material to form a random blend (Paragraphs 173-178), exposing the random blend to shear forces (Paragraph 172), and simultaneously laying down the blend by extrusion (Paragraph 183) onto the surface of an electrical conductor (i.e. wire coating, Paragraph 392). With respect to claim 17, Allcock teaches that the solid particulate material is present at a fill level from 0.1 to 20% (i.e. at least 20%, which is incorporated in claim range, Paragraph 178).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the insulated electrical conductor of Hochstoger to comprise the polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK) polymer including a repeat unit of general formula I configuration as taught by Allcock because Allcock teaches that such a configuration provides a PAEK polymeric composition that has enhanced mechanical properties, a lighter color and lower incidence of gels compared to prior art PAEK (Paragraph 101), and may be utilized as a wire coating (i.e. insulated conductor, Paragraph 392).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the insulating polymeric composition of modified Hochstoger to comprise the melt viscosity to be measured by a tungsten carbide capillary die of 0.5mm diameter and 8 mm length, rather than a length of 3.175, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it appears that modified Hochstoger would still have a melt viscosity of at least 0.15 kNsm-2 (Paragraph 172) and perform equally well with the modification.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstoger (Pat Num 2019/0131037) in view of Allcock (Pub Num 2020/0024393), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Hochstoger), further in view of El-Hibri et al (Pub Num 2015/0259531, herein referred to as El-Hibri). Modified Hochstoger discloses an insulated conductor (Figs 1-3c), which overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art and ensures good adhesion between the insulating coating and the electrical conductor (Paragraph 6), as applied to claim 1 above.
Specifically, with respect to claim 3, modified Hochstoger discloses that the polymeric material may has a crystallinity of at least 25% and less than 40% (see Hochstoger, i.e. 25-35%, Paragraph 66).
However, modified Hochstoger doesn’t necessarily disclose the crystallinity being less than 25% (claim 3).
El-Hibri teaches a polymeric composition that may be utilized as a wire coating (i.e. insulated conductor, Paragraph 209), and having enhanced toughness and impact resistance, while maintaining all other exceptional properties and being cost attractive over existing prior art PAEK/PAES blends (Paragraph 7). Specifically, with respect to claim 3, El-Hibri teaches an insulating polymeric compound that may comprise PAEK in the form of PEEK (Paragraph 38) which comprises a filler compound (Paragraph 146), wherein the polymeric material may have a crystallinity of less than 25% (i.e. 13.8-21.2%, see Table 5) or at least 25% and less than 40% (i.e. 31-35%, Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the insulating polymeric compound of modified Hochstoger to comprise the insulating polymeric compound to comprise the crystallinity being less than 25% as taught by El-Hibri because El-Hibri teaches that such configuration provides a polymeric composition that may be utilized as a wire coating (i.e. insulated conductor, Paragraph 209), and having enhanced toughness and impact resistance, while maintaining all other exceptional properties and being cost attractive over existing prior art PAEK/PAES blends (Paragraph 7).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstoger (Pat Num 2019/0131037) in view of Allcock (Pub Num 2020/0024393), as applied to claims 1 & 7 above (herein referred to as modified Hochstoger), further in view of Blaschke et al (Pub Num 2012/0196113, herein referred to as Blaschke). Modified Hochstoger discloses an insulated conductor (Figs 1-3c), which overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art and ensures good adhesion between the insulating coating and the electrical conductor (Paragraph 6), as applied to claims 1 & 7 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 8, modified Hochstoger discloses that the insulating polymeric compound may comprise PEEK (see Allcock, Paragraph 172) incorporated with a filler, such as talc (see Allcock, Paragraph 176), and filled with 15 to 25% (see Allcock, i.e. at least 20%, which is incorporated in claim range, Paragraph 178). With respect to claim 18, modified Hochstoger discloses that the insulating polymeric compound may comprise PEEK (see Allcock, Paragraph 172) incorporated with a filler, such as talc (see Allcock, Paragraph 176), and filled with 20% (see Allcock, i.e. at least 20%, which is incorporated in claim range, Paragraph 178).
However, modified Hochstoger doesn’t disclose with specificity the insulating polymeric compound being PEEK and 15-25% of the filler talc (claims 8 & 18), nor the solid particulate material having a d50 of between 0.001-50µm (claim 9).
Blaschke teaches an insulating polymeric compound that may be utilized as a cable insulation (Paragraph 42), which exhibits lower shrinkage and reduced area coefficient of thermal expansion (Paragraph 9). Specifically, with respect to claims 8 & 18, Blaschke teaches an insulating polymeric compound that may comprise PAEK in the form of PEEK (Paragraph 11) which comprises a filler compound of 15-25% of talc (i.e. 2-25%, Paragraph 13). With respect to claim 9, Blaschke teaches that the talc has a d50 of between 0.001-50µm (i.e. 0.2-20 µm, Paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the insulating polymeric compound of modified Hochstoger to comprise the insulating polymeric compound with the specificity of PEEK having 15-25% of talc configuration as taught by Blaschke because Blaschke teaches that such a configuration provides an insulating polymeric compound that may be utilized as a cable insulation (Paragraph 42), which exhibits lower shrinkage and reduced area coefficient of thermal expansion (Paragraph 9) and since modified Hochstoger suggest that such a material may be utilized in the filler range in the insulating polymeric material.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstoger (Pat Num 2019/0131037) in view of Allcock (Pub Num 2020/0024393), as applied to claims 1 & 16 above (herein referred to as modified Hochstoger), further in view Applicant’s Own Admission of Prior Art (herein referred to as AOAPA). Modified Hochstoger discloses an insulated conductor (Figs 1-3c), which overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art and ensures good adhesion between the insulating coating and the electrical conductor (Paragraph 6), as applied to claims 1 & 7 above.
However, modified Hochstoger doesn’t necessarily disclose the electrical device being a vehicle motor assembly (claim 20).
AOAPA teaches that utilizing insulated wires having insulated polymeric compounds are commonly utilized in motors of an electrical vehicles (Paragraph 5 of Applicant’s Specification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the insulated wire of modified Hochstoger to comprise the insulated wire being utilized in an motor of an electrical vehicle configuration as taught by AOAPA because AOAPA teaches that such a that utilizing insulated wires having insulating polymeric compounds are commonly utilized in motors of an electrical vehicles (Paragraph 5 of Applicant’s Specification) and since it appears that magnet wire of modified Allcock would perform equally well with the modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed April 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Allcock (Pub Num 2020/0024393) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hochstoger et al (Pat Num 2019/0131037) in view of Allcock (Pub Num 2020/0024393).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various insulation polymeric materials utilized as coating for electrical conductors.
Based on the new rejection, this action is a Non Final Rejection.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights