DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim sets forth three blend partners as “a first blend partner […], a second partner […], and a third partner”. For the second and third blend partners, the word “blend” should be added for consistency.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first two words “A method” should be “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one of the thermoplastics comprises sulfur in semicrystalline form, such that spherulites are detectable.” The original filing does not provide support to recite “sulfur in semicrystalline form, such that spherulites are detectable”. Although the original filing discloses “sulfur” and separately discloses “spherulites,” there is no disclosure that the sulfur is in semicrystalline form, such that spherulites are detectable as claimed. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the thermoplastic comprising sulfur is present in the polymer blend in an amount of up to 25% by weight.” The claim is indefinite because parent claim 1 recites “at least one of the thermoplastics comprises sulfur” which implies one or more such thermoplastics, but the phrase “the thermoplastic comprising sulfur” in claim 7 indicates only one such thermoplastic. It’s unclear if the claim requires the presence of only one thermoplastic comprising sulfur. Additionally, if a blend comprises two thermoplastics comprising sulfur, it is unclear if claim 7 limits the amount of both such thermoplastics or only limits one of the two such thermoplastics.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the copolymeric polymer blend partner" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to refer to the first blend partner of claim 1. The examiner suggests amending claim 9 to recite “wherein the first blend partner has the greatest number” or “wherein the first blend partner comprising the copolymer has the greatest number”.
Claims 10 and 11 each disclose a specific polymer component, namely “a PEK component” and “a PEI component”. The claims are indefinite because parent claim 1 describes a “polymer blend comprises at least three blend partners including: a first blend partner […], a second partner […], and a third partner” but does not use the term “component”. It is unclear if each “component” is a “blend partner” or if “component” has a different scope than “blend partner”. The examiner suggests using consistent terminology throughout the claims. For examination purposes, a “component” is considered to be a “blend partner”.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it depends on claim 6, which has been cancelled. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to depend on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the sulfur-containing thermoplastic has the greatest number of parts.” First, the examiner notes “the sulfur-containing thermoplastic” phrase differs from parent claim 1 and, e.g., separate claim 7, which disclose a “thermoplastic comprising sulfur”. The use of different phrases to refer to the same thing creates ambiguity of whether the phrases do refer to the same thing. Additionally, claim 12 is indefinite because claim 1 recites “at least one of the thermoplastics comprises sulfur” which implies one or more such thermoplastics, but the phrase “the sulfur-containing thermoplastic” in claim 12 indicates only one such thermoplastic. It’s unclear if the claim requires the presence of only one thermoplastic comprising sulfur. Additionally, if a blend comprises two thermoplastics comprising sulfur, it is unclear if claim 12 limits the amount of both such thermoplastics or only limits one of the two such thermoplastics.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maddikeri et al. (WO 2016/160814).
Regarding claim 21:
Maddikeri discloses an electrical wire comprising an insulative covering comprising a blend of an aromatic polyketone and a polyetherimide-siloxane copolymer that can be formed by extrusion [abstract; 0005; 0041; 0043]. The polyketone comprises PEEK or PEK [0008-0011]. These materials are inherently semicrystalline and are the same materials used in the present invention (see, e.g., the specification at p13). Therefore, the examiner submits they are “in semicrystalline form, such that spherulites are detectable” as presently claimed.
Two polyetherimide-siloxane copolymers can be used [0025]. Maddikeri teaches monomers used to form the copolymer include those comprising sulfur [0016-0018]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two polyetherimide-siloxane copolymers, wherein at least one of them comprises a sulfur atom, to provide a blend in accordance with the teachings of Maddikeri, and thereby arrive at the claimed blend of at least three blend partners. Furthermore, given that the prior art blend otherwise comprises the components as presently claimed, the examiner submits the blend meets the broad requirements that it is “resistant to partial discharges”.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maddikeri et al. (WO 2016/160814) in view of Du et al. (US 2005/0099087).
Regarding claim 20:
Maddikeri discloses insulation as previously explained.
Maddikeri is silent with regard to a machine comprising a stator as presently claimed.
Such machines were known in the art to have utility. For example, Du discloses electric machines or motors comprising stators [abstract; 0002; 0011]. The stators comprise a plurality of wires, which may have insulation thereon, and further teaches the stator is insulated by encapsulating material [0041-0042].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Maddikeri’s insulation in known applications thereof, including machines comprising stators, to provide machines with the necessary insulation required for their use.
Regarding claim 15-18:
Maddikeri discloses extruded wire insulation as previously explained.
Maddikeri is silent with regard to further encapsulation, impregnation, injection molding, or compression molding.
Such process steps were known in the art to have utility. Du teaches encapsulating the stators via injection molding, vacuum impregnating, and compression molding [0042-0044].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Maddikeri’s insulation in known applications thereof, including stators made via encapsulation, impregnation, injection molding, or compression molding, to provide machines with the necessary insulation required for their use.
Regarding claim 19:
Maddikeri is silent with regard to a groove lining of a stator.
Du teaches insulating sleeves and insulating slot liners comprising insulating polymers were known in the art [0095-0097].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Maddikeri’s insulation in known applications thereof, including as a slot liner in a stator, to provide machines with the necessary insulation required for their use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 20, and 21 to require “at least one of the thermoplastics comprises sulfur” overcomes previous rejections based on Alesbury (EP 0323142). The reference is silent with regard to a thermoplastic comprising sulfur as claimed.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to require “at least one of the thermoplastics comprises sulfur in semicrystalline form, such that spherulites are detectable” overcomes the previous rejection of claim 1 based on Maddikeri (WO 2016/160814). Although the reference discloses a sulfur-containing polyetherimide-siloxane copolymer, the reference is silent with regard to a “sulfur in semicrystalline form, such that spherulites are detectable” as claimed. The examiner notes, however, this feature was not disclosed in the original filing as discussed above in the rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
The examiner notes claims 20 and 21 more broadly recite “at least one of the thermoplastics comprises sulfur” (i.e., neither requires the sulfur to be in semicrystalline form). These claims remain rejected over Maddikeri (WO 2016/160814). Applicant argues in Remarks that “There is no disclosure in Maddikeri of a blend partner comprising sulfur” (p7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the prior and current rejections, Maddikeri discloses a blend of an aromatic polyketone and a polyetherimide-siloxane copolymer [abstract; 0005; 0041; 0043]. The reference further teaches a combination of two polyetherimide-siloxane copolymers can be used [0025]. The reference further teaches monomers used to form the copolymer include those comprising sulfur [0016-0018]. In view of these disclosures, the examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two polyetherimide-siloxane copolymers, wherein at least one of them comprises a sulfur atom, to provide a blend in accordance with the reference’s teachings, and thereby arrive at the claimed blend of at least three blend partners (i.e., an aromatic polyketone and two polyetherimide-siloxane copolymers, wherein at least one comprises a sulfur atom). The examiner therefore maintains the rejections of claims 20 and 21.
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 JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights