DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant, on page 8, argues that the groove of Thornton used in the rejection is not a groove because it is a portion of a cylindrical container. This argument is not persuasive because a portion of a cylinder can function as a groove. In fact, the groove shown by the applicant in figure 12 cited in the arguments also appears to have a shape of a portion of a cylinder. The groove of the prior art, in the same way as the invention, is also formed in a surface of a structure as defined in the arguments made by the applicant. The groove of the prior art is a recessed feature (as defined by the applicant) formed in a structure (in the prior art case the groove is formed in the train car structure).
The applicant further argues on page 9 that the prior art does not teach a metal securing the cable in a groove, but instead teaches clamps securing the cable. This argument is not persuasive because the term “securing” is broad and for this reason applies to the prior art structure. The examiner agrees that the clamps secure the cable in the groove, but the metal of the prior art, as cited in the rejection, also secures the cable in the groove. There are no details in the claim about how the metal is securing the cable in the groove. Without the metal discussed in the prior art, the cable would not be able to be secured in the groove because it would split. Thus, the prior art metal meets the “securing” claim limitation.
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 1, 4, and 6-8 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.
In re claim 1, the term “a metal” is claimed twice. It is not clear whether it is the same metal structure or two different metals. This term will be interpreted as the same structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton et al. (US 3768417) in view of Takayasu et al. (US 8437819).
In re claim 1, Thornton, in figures 1-23, discloses a magnetic system comprising: a first coil (5) configured to produce a constant magnetic field, the first coil comprising: a support structure having a groove (as best seen in figure 11, formed by the curved lower surface of structure 25); a cable comprising a metal at least partially filling the cable, the cable being disposed in the groove (as best seen in figure 11); and a metal securing the cable in the groove (multiple metals such as aluminum, copper, and NbTi are discussed in the disclosure, see column 6, lines 35-40 securing the cable in the groove); and a second coil (made of conductors 10) configured to produce an alternating magnetic field; wherein the first coil and the second coil are positioned so that the constant magnetic field and the alternating magnetic field interact to cause a magnetic force between the first coil and the second coil that causes the first or second coil to move (inherent function of the shown structure). Thornton does not teach high temperature superconductor being used to make the cable. Takayasu however teaches that HTS cables are known in the art (this is discussed throughout the disclosure, specifically YBCO and BSCCO materials are mentioned). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used HTS materials as taught by Takayasu to make the coil of Thornton to allow for higher temperature superconducting operation and thus reduce cooling requirements.
In re claim 4, Thornton, in figures 1-23, discloses that the first coil is a pancake-wound coil or a layer-wound coil (different layers can be seen in figure 11 and 15).
In re claim 6, Thornton, in figures 1-23, discloses the cable but does not teach a cooling channel. Takayasu however, teaches that it is known in the art to include a cooling channel in a superconducting cable (figures 8-25 show various arrangements including cooling channels). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a cooling channel inside the cable of Thornton as disclosed by Takayasu to improve cooling efficiency.
In re claim 7, Thornton, in figures 1-23, discloses copper or aluminum matrix in which superconductor material is embedded (see lines 35-40 of column 6).
In re claim 8, Thornton, in figures 1-23, discloses dielectric insulator partitions (24) to partition the stabilizer material into a plurality of segments to reduce eddy currents in the HTS cable (this is an inherent function of the shown structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837