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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 13-14 and 16–19 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 6/11/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
The arguments regarding the prior art rejections are unpersuasive due to the newly filed IDS introducing the Aoki paper (see below), permitting the rejection of the claims under Aoki following an updated search by Examiner.
The arguments regarding the rejoinder of claims 44-47 are unpersuasive for the reasons laid out in the 7/5/2024 Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13–14 and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (Effect of neutron irradiation on high-temperature superconductors, see IDS filed 6/11/2026) in view of Deeth (US20120014491).
Regarding claim 13, discloses a nuclear fusion reactor (“nuclear fusion reactors,” § Introduction) comprising: a magnetic coil (“HTS coils,” abstract) comprising a polycrystalline superconductor (“YBCO tapes,” § Introduction); a reactor chamber (“nuclear fusion reactors,” § Introduction) passing through an interior of the magnetic coil (“HTS coils,” abstract); and a neutron shield (implicit due to the 14-MeV neutrons with a flux distribution, § Introduction) arranged between the reactor chamber and the magnetic coil, wherein the neutron shield has a thickness in centimeters (it is implicit that the shield has a thickness that can be measured in cm).
Aoki does not disclose that the thickness is between 25 and 35 times P0.1, where P is the nuclear fusion reactor's rated power output in megawatts.
Deeth does suggest this. Deeth is in the same art area of shielding in nuclear fusion reactors and teaches wherein the shield thickness is a function of the nuclear fusion reactor’s rated power output in megawatts (“The most critical shielding requirement is the protection of the superconducting coils (SCC) from excess nuclear heating, radiation damage, dose, and neutron fluence. In tokamak reactors, the SCCs operate at cryogenic temperatures (4 K). Each watt of thermal power deposited in the magnets by neutrons and secondary gamma rays requires ˜500 watts of refrigeration power to remove the added heat. For reactors designed to produce 1-10 GW of fusion power, an attenuation factor of 105 to 106 is required in the blanket-shield,” ¶ 31).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the shield of Aoki with the knowledge of the thickness-power output relationship suggested by Deeth, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in order to “assure heating rate limits are not exceeded in the coils. In general, an inboard shield thickness of more than a meter is required to achieve this reduction,” Deeth at ¶ 31.
This combination does not explicitly state the thickness is between 25 and 35 times P0.1, where P is the nuclear fusion reactor's rated power output in megawatts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have made the thickness between 25 and 35 times P0.1, 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.
Regarding claim 14, Aoki in view of Deeth teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly teach the values of 40-70 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have made the thickness between 40-70 cm, 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.
Regarding claim 16, Aoki in view of Deeth teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly teach wherein the neutron shield comprises boron. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a material of boron, since it has been held to be within the 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.
Regarding claim 17, Aoki in view of Deeth teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Aoki further discloses wherein the polycrystalline superconductor comprises a rare-earth copper oxide superconductor (“YBCO tapes,” § Introduction).
Regarding claim 18, Aoki in view of Deeth teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Aoki further discloses wherein the polycrystalline superconductor is coated with at least one electrical conductor (fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 19, Aoki in view of Deeth teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Aoki further discloses wherein the magnetic coil comprises toroidal windings of the polycrystalline superconductor (“nuclear fusion reactors,” § Introduction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights