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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ June 14, 2026 response to the May 15, 2026 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
This second non-final is issued to correctly reject claim 11.
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 in length. 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. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, the entire first line and “there is disclosed” in line 2 can be implied. Examiner further notes the Abstract should be submitted as its own page.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 3 allows for one of the listed materials to be the insulative layer; but as presently amended claim 1, from which claim 3 depends requires the insulative layer to be oxidized aluminum. Therefore, it is indefinite why aluminum fluoride or aluminum nitride are included as options in the dependent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 3 allows for one of the listed materials to be the insulative layer; but as presently amended claim 1, from which claim 3 depends requires the insulative layer to be oxidized aluminum. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (WO-2023038564-A1), hereinafter Andersson (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Andersson teaches a bundle of metallic wires (strands) and each metallic strand (a strand has an outer diameter) is coated with a non-conductor layer (insulative layer) (Pg. 3 Ln. 1-8) the same as a conventional litz wire (Pg. 5 Ln. 25-26; “Litz wires have a plurality of relatively thin electrical conductors, each having individual insulation…to insulate it Pg. 3 Ln. 1-3), the metallic wire (strand) of an aluminum alloy (Pg. 7 Ln. 35-36) and the non-conductor layer can be an aluminum oxide outer layer (Pg. 8 Lns. 3-4).
With regards to “applied via a corona discharge treatment process”, and “initial” diameter and “oxidizing inwardly relative to the initial outer diameter” this is product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, however, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. In this instance, the patentable distinction structurally of “applied via a corona discharge treatment process” is that of an insulative layer (optionally of aluminum oxide, claim 3) and that of “oxidizing inwardly relative to an initial” diameter is that of an oxide layer, addressed above.
Applicant themselves describe that the aluminum oxide can be made by corona discharge, CVD or other chemical reactions ([0007]; i.e. the process does not form further structural limitations beyond an aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 2, Andersson teaches each limitation of group 1, as discussed above. Andersson further teaches a bundle of metallic wires; the metallic wires being separated from each other by non-conductor layers provided on at least a majority of the individual metallic wires (Pg. 4 Ln. 24-27; inclusive of all metallic wires) and bundle (of metallic wires) means all metallic wires (and their constituents) (Pg. 4 Lns. 1-3).
With regards to “applied via a corona discharge treatment process”, this is product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, however, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. In this instance, the patentable distinction structurally of “applied via a corona discharge treatment process” is that of an insulative layer (optionally of aluminum oxide, claim 3), addressed above.
Applicant themselves describe that the aluminum oxide can be made by corona discharge, CVD or other chemical reactions ([0007]; i.e. the process does not form further structural limitations beyond an aluminum oxide).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Andersson teaches each limitation of group 1, as discussed above. Andersson further teaches a bundle of metallic wires; the metallic wires being separated from each other by non-conductor layers provided on at least a majority of the individual metallic wires (Pg. 4 Ln. 24-27; inclusive of all metallic wires) and bundle (of metallic wires) means all metallic wires (and their constituents) in a (single-phase) cable (Pg. 4 Lns. 1-3) where the metallic wires are woven such that each of the metallic wires alternates between outer and inner positions (Pg. 4 Ln. 27-29). Andersson further teaches a bundle is made of multiple groups where the metallic wires of each group are mutually twisted (woven to one of ordinary skill in the art) (Pg. 13 Ln. 12-14).
Regarding claim 6, Andersson teaches each limitation of group 1, as discussed above. Andersson further teaches non-conductor material of a cable (fig. 3c and 3a) can be removed by melting to form opening 16 (Pg. 15 Ln. 25-28); Fig. 3c shows this to be at an end of the strand (20) (Pg. 16 Ln. 5-6); Fig. 3c), and the metallic wire (strand) of an aluminum alloy (Pg. 7 Ln. 35-36). Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation a side of wire is an “end”).
With regards to “flash” melting, this is product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, however, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. In this instance, the patentable distinction structurally of “flash” melting is that of melted area near an end of the aluminum strand, addressed above.
Regarding claim 7, Andersson teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches a bundle of metallic wires and each metallic strand is coated with a non-conductor layer (insulative layer) (Pg. 3 Ln. 1-8) the same as a conventional litz wire (Pg. 5 Ln. 25-26; “Litz wires have a plurality of relatively thin electrical conductors, each having individual insulation…to insulate it Pg. 3 Ln. 1-3), suitable for use in high temperature applications (Pg. 12 Ln. 12-13). Examiner notes “configured for use in an application experiencing temperatures greater than 400⁰F” is considered to be language to the intended use of the product. “’[A] recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim” (MPEP 2114 II). Further, applicant has not claimed the properties that the litz wire should maintain at this temperature, as such under broadest reasonable interpretation any wire can be used at 400⁰F, “configured for use” is broadly inclusive of “intending to be melted” or “intending to have properties maintained” or anything in between.
As the litz wire of the prior art meets the structural limitations explicitly claimed it is considered to meet a broadest reasonable interpretation of the intended use claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Andersson teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches an outer semi-conductive layer 19 around the cable of a bundle of metallic wires surrounded by non-conductive layers (Pg. 12 Lns. 10-15; 34 and Fig. 3a), and a bundle of metallic wires and each metallic strand is coated with a non-conductor layer (insulative layer) (Pg. 3 Ln. 1-8) the same as a conventional litz wire (Pg. 5 Ln. 25-26; “Litz wires have a plurality of relatively thin electrical conductors, each having individual insulation…to insulate it Pg. 3 Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Andersson teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches the metallic wire (strand) of an aluminum alloy (Pg. 7 Ln. 35-36) and wires are generally cylindrical shape (Pg. 4 Lns. 14-15; i.e. have a cross section that is broadly round), generally round cross section also shown in Fig. 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Andersson teaches each limitation of group 1, as discussed above.
“Regarding “wherein the corona discharge process is applied via a continuous flow process, wherein the continuous flow process includes keeping the strands at potential that is higher relative to adjacent electrodes as the strands are spooled onto individual bobbins or spun into the litz wire”, this is product by process language. Product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, however, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. In this instance, the patentable distinction structurally of the above language is that of the litz wire rejected in claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Cottrell et al. (US-20190312439-A1), hereinafter Cottrell (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Andersson teaches each limitation of group 1, as discussed above. Andersson does not specifically teach an aircraft alternator includes the litz wire. Cottrell is in a related field of endeavor of aluminum litz wire ([0017]) teaches an aircraft with an electrical generator including first and second electrical cables ([0007]), where the cables are litz wires ([0012]), and the electrical generator produces AC power ([0024]; alternator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Andersson to incorporate the usage of the litz wire in an aircraft alternator as taught by Cottrell. The motivation for doing so would have been that the electrical cable of Andersson is for conveying AC power (Pg. 17 Ln. 36 to Pg. 18 Ln. 1) (and the cable includes the wire; Abstract) and is light weight (claim 1), and litz wire offers the minimum cross section of any wire construction for carrying AC power ([0096] Cottrell), which thereby allows them to be light-weight for use in electric or hybrid electric aircraft ([0078]; Cottrell).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s’ amendment and related Remarks, see Pg. 7 to Pg. 8 , filed June 14, 2026, with respect to specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of May 15, 2026 has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendment a further objection is made.
Applicant’s’ amendment and related Remarks, see Pg., filed June 14, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of May 15, 2026 has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendment a further objection is made.
Applicant's arguments filed June 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the newly amended claim limitation, which is not persuasive as it is rejected above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights