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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for provisional priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The provisional application being filed August 30, 2023, as Application No. 63/535,548.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 22, 2024 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 30, 2024. These drawings are approved.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
In lines 1-2 and 5-7, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide the abstract with proper content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leach et al (Pub Num 2022/0044839, herein referred to as Leach). Leach discloses a magnet wire (Figs 1-3), wherein the overall insulation performance is achieved, while maintaining reducing the overall cost of the insulation system (Paragraph 75), and while providing better performance, such as dielectric breakdown, temperature rating, etc.) than a single layer insulation of PEEK (Paragraph 50). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Leach discloses a magnet wire (100, Fig 1) comprising a conductor (105), which may be made of copper (Paragraph 21) and at least one insulation layer (125, 115, 120) formed around the conductor (105), wherein the insulation layer (115, 120) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 37) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 38), wherein the one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraph 39). With respect to claims 2-3, Leach discloses that the matrix polymeric material (115, 120) may comprises a polymer including at least one ketone group in one of repeat units in one macromolecule, such as polyetheretherketone (i.e. PEEK , Paragraph 31). With respect to claim 4, Leach discloses that one or more additives comprise an acid scavenger, wherein the acid scavenger comprising a metal oxide (Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 7, Leach discloses that the one or more additives comprise a metal oxide comprising (i) vanadium(V) oxide (Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 10, Leach discloses a magnet wire (100, Fig 1) comprising a conductor (105), which may be made of copper (Paragraph 21) and at least one insulation layer (125, 115, 120) formed around the conductor (105), wherein the insulation layer (115, 120) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 37) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 38), wherein the one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraph 39). With respect to claim 11, Leach discloses that the matrix polymeric material (115, 120) may comprises a polymer including at least one ketone group in one of repeat units in one macromolecule, such as polyetheretherketone (i.e. PEEK , Paragraph 31). With respect to claim 12, Leach discloses that one or more additives comprise an acid scavenger, wherein the acid scavenger comprising a metal oxide (Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 15, Leach discloses that the one or more additives comprise a metal oxide comprising (i) vanadium(V) oxide (Paragraph 38).
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) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (Pub Num 2022/0044839). Leach discloses a magnet wire (Figs 1-3), wherein the overall insulation performance is achieved, while maintaining reducing the overall cost of the insulation system (Paragraph 75), and while providing better performance, such as dielectric breakdown, temperature rating, etc.) than a single layer insulation of PEEK (Paragraph 50), as applied to claims 1 & 10 above.
While Leach discloses the one or more additives comprising metal oxides of aluminum and zirconium (Paragraph 38), Leach doesn’t specifically disclose the one or more additives comprise a weak base, the weak base comprising at least one of (i) aluminum hydroxide, (ii) zirconium(IV) hydroxide, (iii) zirconium(IV) carbonate hydroxide oxide, (iv) aluminum dihydrogen phosphate, (v) sodium hydrogen phosphate, (vi) lead(II) hydroxide acetate, (vii) ammonium bicarbonate, (viii) calcium phosphosilicate, or (ix) molecular sieves (claims 6 & 14).
With respect to claims 6 & 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify magnet wire of Leach comprising the insulation resin layer made of the metal oxides of aluminum and zirconium to be made of aluminum and/or zirconium hydroxide, since such materials are well known in the art of cables for providing flame retardant properties to electrical insulations and because of their ability to release water vapor and absorb heat when exposed to high temperatures since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (Pub Num 2022/0044839) in view of Yoshiko et al (JP Pat Num 2014-040528, herein referred to as Yoshiko). Leach discloses a magnet wire (Figs 1-3), wherein the overall insulation performance is achieved, while maintaining reducing the overall cost of the insulation system (Paragraph 75), and while providing better performance, such as dielectric breakdown, temperature rating, etc.) than a single layer insulation of PEEK (Paragraph 50), as applied to claims 1 & 10 above.
While Leach discloses the one or more additives comprising metal oxides of aluminum and zirconium (Paragraph 38), Leach doesn’t specifically disclose the one or more additives comprising a strong base, the strong base comprising at least one of (i) lithium hydroxide, (ii) magnesium hydroxide, (iii) calcium hydroxide, (iv) barium hydroxide, or (v) a hydrate of lithium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, or barium hydroxide (claims 5 & 13).
Yoshiko teaches an electrical insulating resin composition (Figs 1-3), for usage as coating materials for enameled motor wires (Paragraph 2), while having excellent insulation deterioration resistance, and excellent mechanical strength (Paragraph 7) and providing better resistance to insulation degradation (Paragraph 66). Specifically, with respect to claims 5 & 13, Yoshiko teaches an insulation layer (3) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 48-49) comprises a polymer including at least one ketone group in one of repeat units in one macromolecule, such as polyetheretherketone (i.e. PEEK) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 50), wherein the matrix thermoplastic polymer material may be one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraph 51), wherein the one or more additives may comprise (ii) magnesium hydroxide, (iii) calcium hydroxide, or (iv) barium hydroxide (Paragraph 66).
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 magnet wire of Leach comprising the insulation resin layer comprising one or more additives such as metal oxides to be made of magnesium hydroxide, (iii) calcium hydroxide, or (iv) barium hydroxide configuration as taught by Yoshiko because Yoshiko teach that such a configuration provides an electrical insulating resin composition (Figs 1-3), for usage as coating materials for enameled motor wires (Paragraph 2), while having excellent insulation deterioration resistance, and excellent mechanical strength (Paragraph 7) and providing better resistance to insulation degradation (Paragraph 66) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (Pub Num 2022/0044839) in view of Boecker et al (Pub Num 2019/0228885, herein referred to as Boecker). Leach discloses a magnet wire (Figs 1-3), wherein the overall insulation performance is achieved, while maintaining reducing the overall cost of the insulation system (Paragraph 75), and while providing better performance, such as dielectric breakdown, temperature rating, etc.) than a single layer insulation of PEEK (Paragraph 50), as applied to claims 1 & 10 above.
While Leach discloses the one or more additives comprising metal oxides of aluminum and zirconium (Paragraph 38), Leach doesn’t specifically disclose the one or more additives comprising the one or more additives comprise a thermal stabilizer, the thermal stabilizer comprising at least one of (i) triaryl phosphate, (ii) aromatic phosphite, (iii) a secondary aromatic amine, (iv) a free-radical scavenger, (v) iron(II) oxalate hydrate, (vi) ferrocene, or (vii) a derivative of ferrocene (claims 8 & 16), nor the one or more additives comprise a chemical crosslinker, the chemical crosslinker comprising at least one of (i) polyamideimide, (ii) aromatic bismaleimide, (iii) aromatic benzoxazine, (iv) epoxy novalac resin, (v) epoxy resin of phenol-dicyclopentadiene adducts, (vi) aromatic amine, or (vii) carbodilite (claims 9 & 17).
Boecker teaches an insulated wire (Figs 6-8), wherein the insulation material may be formed of matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 117), wherein the polymeric material may contain PEEK (Paragraph 119) embedded with metal oxides (Paragraphs 76-77) and other additives (Paragraph 96), wherein the rigidity of the thermoplastic polymer material may be adjusting the duration, temperature, intensity, and type of curing process to produce the insulated wire with a specific desired degree of rigidity (Paragraph 36). Specifically, with respect to claims 8-9 & 16-17, Boecker teaches an insulated wire (5, Fig 8) comprising a conductor (45) and at least one insulation layer (10) formed around the conductor (45, Paragraph 32), wherein the insulation layer (10) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 117) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 96), wherein the one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraphs 76-77), wherein the one or more additives may comprise the one or more additives comprise a thermal stabilizer, such as (ii) aromatic phosphite and (iv) a free-radical scavenger (Paragraph 136) and a chemical crosslinker, such as (iv) epoxy novalac resin and (v) epoxy resin of phenol-dicyclopentadiene adducts (Paragraph 78).
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 magnet wire of Leach comprising the insulation resin layer having the one or more additives comprising a thermal stabilizer, such as (ii) aromatic phosphite and (iv) a free-radical scavenger and a chemical crosslinker, such as (iv) epoxy novalac resin and (v) epoxy resin of phenol-dicyclopentadiene adducts configuration as taught by Boecker because Boecker teaches that such a configuration provides a an insulated wire (Figs 6-8), wherein the insulation material may be formed of matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 117), wherein the polymeric material may contain PEEK (Paragraph 119) embedded with metal oxides (Paragraphs 76-77) and other additives (Paragraph 96), wherein the rigidity of the thermoplastic polymer material may be adjusting the duration, temperature, intensity, and type of curing process to produce the insulated wire with a specific desired degree of rigidity (Paragraph 36) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (Pub Num 2022/0044839) in view of Yoshiko (JP Pat Num 2014-040528). Leach discloses a magnet wire (Figs 1-3), wherein the overall insulation performance is achieved, while maintaining reducing the overall cost of the insulation system (Paragraph 75), and while providing better performance, such as dielectric breakdown, temperature rating, etc.) than a single layer insulation of PEEK (Paragraph 50). Specifically, with respect to claim 18, Leach discloses a magnet wire (100, Fig 1) comprising a conductor (105), which may be made of copper (Paragraph 21) and at least one insulation layer (125, 115, 120) formed around the conductor (105), wherein the insulation layer (115, 120) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 37) comprising a polymer including at least one ketone group in one of repeat units in one macromolecule, such as polyetheretherketone (i.e. PEEK , Paragraph 31) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 38), wherein the one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraph 39).
While Leach discloses the one or more additives comprising metal oxides of aluminum and zirconium (Paragraph 38), Leach doesn’t specifically disclose the at least one of (i) strong base, (ii) a weak base, (iii) a thermal stabilizer, or (iv) a chemical crosslinker (claim 18), nor the one or more additives comprising a strong base, the strong base comprising at least one of (i) lithium hydroxide, (ii) magnesium hydroxide, (iii) calcium hydroxide, (iv) barium hydroxide, or (v) a hydrate of lithium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, or barium hydroxide, (vi) aluminum hydroxide, (vii) zirconium(IV) hydroxide, (viii) zirconium(IV) carbonate hydroxide oxide, (ix) aluminum dihydrogen phosphate, (x) sodium hydrogen phosphate, (xi) lead(II) hydroxide acetate, (xii) ammonium bicarbonate, (xiii) calcium phosphosilicate, or (xiv) molecular sieves (claim 19).
Yoshiko teaches an electrical insulating resin composition (Figs 1-3), for usage as coating materials for enameled motor wires (Paragraph 2), while having excellent insulation deterioration resistance, and excellent mechanical strength (Paragraph 7) and providing better resistance to insulation degradation (Paragraph 66). Specifically, with respect to claims 18-19, Yoshiko teaches an insulation layer (3) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 48-49) comprises a polymer including at least one ketone group in one of repeat units in one macromolecule, such as polyetheretherketone (i.e. PEEK) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 50), wherein the matrix thermoplastic polymer material may be one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraph 51), wherein the one or more additives may comprise (ii) magnesium hydroxide, (iii) calcium hydroxide, or (iv) barium hydroxide (Paragraph 66).
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 magnet wire of Leach comprising the insulation resin layer comprising one or more additives such as metal oxides to be made of magnesium hydroxide, (iii) calcium hydroxide, or (iv) barium hydroxide configuration as taught by Yoshiko because Yoshiko teach that such a configuration provides an electrical insulating resin composition (Figs 1-3), for usage as coating materials for enameled motor wires (Paragraph 2), while having excellent insulation deterioration resistance, and excellent mechanical strength (Paragraph 7) and providing better resistance to insulation degradation (Paragraph 66) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (Pub Num 2022/0044839) in view of Yoshiko (JP Pat Num 2014-040528), as applied to claim 18 above (herein referred to as modified Leach), further in view of Boecker et al (Pub Num 2019/0228885). Modified Leach discloses a magnet wire (Figs 1-3), wherein the overall insulation performance is achieved, while maintaining reducing the overall cost of the insulation system (Paragraph 75), and while providing better performance, such as dielectric breakdown, temperature rating, etc.) than a single layer insulation of PEEK (Paragraph 50).
While modified Leach discloses the one or more additives comprising metal oxides of aluminum and zirconium (Paragraph 38), Leach doesn’t specifically disclose the one or more additives comprising at least one of (i) triaryl phosphate, (ii) aromatic phosphite, (iii) a secondary aromatic amine, (iv) a free-radical scavenger, (v) iron(II) oxalate hydrate, (vi) ferrocene, or (vii) a derivative of ferrocene, (viii) polyamideimide, (ix) aromatic bismaleimide, (x) aromatic benzoxazine, (xi) epoxy novalac resin, (xii) epoxy resin of phenol-dicyclopentadiene adducts, (xiii) aromatic amine, or (xiv) carbodilite (claim 20).
Boecker teaches an insulated wire (Figs 6-8), wherein the insulation material may be formed of matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 117), wherein the polymeric material may contain PEEK (Paragraph 119) embedded with metal oxides (Paragraphs 76-77) and other additives (Paragraph 96), wherein the rigidity of the thermoplastic polymer material may be adjusting the duration, temperature, intensity, and type of curing process to produce the insulated wire with a specific desired degree of rigidity (Paragraph 36). Specifically, with respect to claim 20, Boecker teaches an insulated wire (5, Fig 8) comprising a conductor (45) and at least one insulation layer (10) formed around the conductor (45, Paragraph 32), wherein the insulation layer (10) comprising a matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 117) and one or more additives incorporated into the matrix polymeric material (Paragraph 96), wherein the one or more additives mitigate copper poisoning (i.e. metal oxides are capable of inhibiting copper poisoning, Paragraphs 76-77), wherein the one or more additives may comprise the one or more additives comprise a thermal stabilizer, such as (ii) aromatic phosphite and (iv) a free-radical scavenger (Paragraph 136) and a chemical crosslinker, such as (iv) epoxy novalac resin and (v) epoxy resin of phenol-dicyclopentadiene adducts (Paragraph 78).
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 magnet wire of modified Leach comprising the insulation resin layer having the one or more additives comprising a thermal stabilizer, such as (ii) aromatic phosphite and (iv) a free-radical scavenger and a chemical crosslinker, such as (iv) epoxy novalac resin and (v) epoxy resin of phenol-dicyclopentadiene adducts configuration as taught by Boecker because Boecker teaches that such a configuration provides a an insulated wire (Figs 6-8), wherein the insulation material may be formed of matrix thermoplastic polymeric material (Paragraph 117), wherein the polymeric material may contain PEEK (Paragraph 119) embedded with metal oxides (Paragraphs 76-77) and other additives (Paragraph 96), wherein the rigidity of the thermoplastic polymer material may be adjusting the duration, temperature, intensity, and type of curing process to produce the insulated wire with a specific desired degree of rigidity (Paragraph 36) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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 matrix thermoplastic polymeric materials for usage as insulation material for conductors/cable/wires and comprising one or more additives incorporated within the insulation material.
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 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights