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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 15-28 in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “wire having a generally rectangular cross-sectional shape with rounded corners”; “enamel coating”; “tape wrapped around the enamel”; and “an additional polymer adhered to the polyimide” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 27 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 19, line 3, “insulated” should be changed to --insulative--.
Claim 27, line 4, “a polyimide film” is unclear to how this relates to “polyimide” cited in claim 15.
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.
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.
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 15-18, 20-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caudill et al. (2016/0233003) in view of Ishikawa et al. (2021/0166844).
Caudill et al. discloses an electrically insulated conductor comprising: an electrically conductive core (255); an enamel coating along the electrically conductive core (260); and an electrically insulative tape (265) wrapped around the enameled electrically conductive core, the electrically insulative tape comprising polyimide ([0035]), an additional polymer (FEP, [0035]) adhered to the polyimide (re-claim 15).
Caudill et al. does not disclose the tape also comprising a sufficient amount of an electrically insulative, corona resistant filler (re-claim 15).
Ishikawa et al. discloses an insulated wire comprising a tape (10) comprising polyimide and a sufficient amount of an electrically insulative, corona resistant filler which comprises aluminum oxide (12, alumina) (re-claims 15 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include aluminum oxide as taught by Ishikawa et al. in the polyimide of Caudill et al. to provide an insulative tape having high thermal conductivity and high voltage endurance ([0021]). It is noted that since the modified insulated conductor of Caudill et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the tape-wrapped, enameled electrically conductive core is resistant to partial discharge (re-claim 15).
Caudill et al. also discloses the enamel coating having an average thickness of about 90 µm perside or less ([0034]) (re-claim 17); the insulative tape being wrapped around the enameled core with a tape overlap within a range of about 15% to about 70% ([0037]) (re-claim 18); the enamel coating comprising PAI or PI ([0031]) (re-claim 20); the conductive core comprising copper ([0023]) and having a generally rectangular shape cross-sectional with rounded corners (Fig. 2C), the enamel coating comprising PAI enamel coating along the copper such that the PAI enamel coating has an average thickness in a range of about 60 µm to 65 µm per side, and the insulative tape being wrapped around the PAI enameled copper wire such that the tape overlap is about 53% and the average insulation thickness is about 123 µm per side as defined by the PAI enamel coating and the insulative tape ([0034]-[0037]) (re-claim 21); the conductive core comprising copper and having a generally rectangular shape cross-sectional with rounded corners, the enamel coating comprising PI enamel coating along the copper such that the PI enamel coating has an average thickness in a range of about 40 µm to 45 µm per side, and the insulative tape being wrapped around the PI enameled copper wire such that the tape overlap is about 53% and the average insulation thickness is about 108 µm per side as defined by the PI enamel coating and the insulative tape ([0034]-[0037]) (re-claim 22); the conductive core comprising copper and having a generally rectangular shape cross-sectional with rounded corners, the enamel coating comprising PEI/PAI enamel coating ([0031], enamel layer may be formed as a mixture of two or more materials) along the copper such that the PEI/PAI enamel coating has an average thickness in a range of about 60 µm to 65 µm per side, and the insulative tape being wrapped around the PAI enameled copper wire such that the tape overlap is about 53% and the average insulation thickness is about 123 µm per side as defined by the PEI/PAI enamel coating and the insulative tape ([0034]-[0037]) (re-claim 23); the enamel coating comprising PAI enamel coating along the conductive core and the insulative tape being wrapped around the PAI enameled conductive core such that the PAI enamel coating has an average thickness in a range of about 60 µm to 65 µm per side, the tape overlap is in a range of about 20% to 66%, and the average insulation thickness is in a range of about 91 µm to about 125 µm per side as defined by the PAI enamel coating and the insulative tape ([0034]-[0037]) (re-claim 24); the enamel coating comprising PI enamel coating along the conductive core such that the PI enamel coating has an average thickness in a range of about 40 µm to about 45 µm per side, and the insulative tape being wrapped around the PI enameled conductive core such that the tape overlap is in a range of about 15% to 53%, and the average insulation thickness is in a range of about 75 µm to about 108 µm per side as defined by the PI enamel coating and the insulative tape ([0034]-[0037]) (re-claim 25); the enamel coating comprising PEI/PAI or PI enamel coating along the conductive core such that the enamel coating has an average thickness in a range of about 50 µm to about 70 µm per side, and the insulative tape being wrapped around the enameled conductive core such that the tape overlap is in a range of about 15% to 70%, and the tape-wrapped, enameled conductive core has an overall average thickness less than about 170 µm per side ([0034]-[0037]) (re-claim 26).
Re-claim 28, Caudill et al. and Ishikawa et al. discloses the insulative tape including about 10 to 25 weight percent of the electrically insulative, corona resistant composite filler in the polyimide (Ishikawa, [0046]); the insulative tape having a thickness less than 30 µm (Caudill, [0037]) not including the additional polymer adhered to the polyimide; the enamel coating comprising PAI enamel coating along the conductive core such that the PAI enamel coating has an average thickness within a range from about 30 µm to about 80 µm per side; and the insulative tape is wrapped around the PAI enameled conductive core such that the tape overlap is within a range from about 15% to about 70% and the tape-wrapped, PAI enameled electrically conductive core has an overall average thickness less than about 170 micrometers per side ([0034]-[0037]).
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamura et al. (JP 2007-116845) in view of Ishikawa et al.
Hamamura et al. discloses an electrically insulated conductor comprising: an electrically conductive core (3); an enamel coating along the electrically conductive core (page 6 of the machine translation); and an electrically insulative tape (1) wrapped around the enameled electrically conductive core, the electrically insulative tape comprising polyimide, an additional polymer (fusion layer) adhered to the polyimide (re-claim 15). Hamamura et al. also discloses that the enamel coating is cured, the insulative tape being wrapped around the cured enameled conductive core and heat sealed to help ensure good adhesion of the tape to the coating (re-claim 19).
Hamamura et al. does not disclose the tape also comprising a sufficient amount of an electrically insulative, corona resistant filler (re-claim 15).
Ishikawa et al. discloses an insulated wire comprising a tape (10) comprising polyimide and a sufficient amount of an electrically insulative, corona resistant filler (12) (re-claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the filler as taught by Ishikawa et al. in the polyimide of Hamamura et al. to provide an insulative tape having high thermal conductivity and high voltage endurance ([0021]). It is noted that since the modified insulated conductor of Hamamura et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the tape-wrapped, enameled electrically conductive core is resistant to partial discharge (re-claim 15); and the enamel coating underneath the insulative tape is configured to provide sufficient electrical insulation for the conductive core should the insulative tape delaminate and/or scrape off from the tape-wrapped, enameled conductive core (re-claim 19).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caudill et al. in view of Ishikawa et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kondo et al. (2017/0260331).
Claim 27 additionally recites the polyimide comprising PMDA and ODA. Kondo et al. discloses an insulated conductor comprising a polyimide film which comprises PMDA and ODA (Table 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a polyimide comprising PMDA and ODA as taught by Kondo et al. for the polyimide of Caudill et al. to provide an insulative tape being lightweight and having excellent abrasion resistance ([0003]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 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 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights