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 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 3, 4, 11, 12 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.
The recitation in claim 3 of “the superconductor is from 1.5 to 3.5 microns” renders the claim indefinite. It appears that this limitation should recite the superconductor layer is from 1.5-3.5 microns.
The recitation in claim 4 of “nanoparticles are essentially of an isotropic shape” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what essentially of an isotropic shape is meant to connote.
The recitation in claim 11, line 2-3 of “characterized by typical lift-factor values” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether these values were measured or whether these values are assumed (i.e. typical).
The recitation in claim 12, line 2-3 of “for the superconductor are typical the following absolute values of critical current” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether these values were measured or whether these values are assumed (i.e. typical).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4-5, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usoskin (US 2012/0015814).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10; Usoskin teaches a flexible high temperature superconductor (it appears that flexible is a broad term therefore, the disclosure meets this; YBCO; abstract) comprising a substrate (abstract; para. 0022) and a superconducting layer comprising YBCO and Y2O3 (Y2O3 is selected form a sufficiently small list such that Y2O3 is anticipated/rendered obvious) (having an RE1+2xBa2Cu3O7+3x; abstract, para. 0022) wherein the density of the nanoparticles is 0.005-25 vol% such that the disclosure of Usoskin overlaps with the claimed density 1016 and RE1+2xBa2Cu3O7+3x where x=0.05-0.15.
Regarding claims 4-5, Usoskin teaches that the morphology of the nanoparticles includes spherical particles having a range of size overlapping with the range claimed and appear to be uniform (see fig. 1; para. 0034, 0057).
Regarding claims 11-12, it appears that the process of producing the product of Usoskin is substantially similar to the process of the claimed invention, including depositing the superconductor and defect using PLD (para. 0024) and where the concentration of nanoparticles overlaps with the claimed range such that the product produced by the process of Usoskin is substantially similar to that of the claimed invention (including the claimed lift factor and current density). See rejection above.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usoskin in view of Hirata (US 2021/0323834).
Usoskin teaches a product as described in claim 1, but fails to teach the superconductor film has a thickness of 1.5-3.5 microns.
Hirata, however, teaches a YBCO superconductor (abstract) wherein the superconductor film has a thickness from 0.5-5 microns (para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconductor film of Obradors has a thickness from 0.5-5 microns in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Hayashi.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usoskin in view of Hirata (US 2021/0323834) and Wang (US 2010/0022397) .
Usoskin teaches a method of manufacturing a high temperature superconductor comprising pulsed laser depositing of a superconductor material onto a substrate (para. 0039).
Usoskin fails to teach the substrate is at a temperature of at least 800 C.
Wang, however, teaches a method of making YBCO superconductor by PLD (para. 0023) wherein the substrate is heated at a temperature of 600-950 C (para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate is heated at a temperature of 600-950 C in Usoskin in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Wang.
Additionally, it appears that the temperature disclosed by Wang overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Usoskin fails to teach the deposition rate of 100 nm/s.
Hirata, however, teaches a method of making YBCO superconductor by PLD (para. 0010) wherein the deposition rate is over 36 nm/sec (para. 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the deposition rate is over 36 nm/sec in Usoskin in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Hirata.
Additionally, it appears that the deposition rate disclosed by Hirata overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the limitation of having a temperature gradient, Wang teaches that the substrate is heated on a heated holder such that the temperature gradient in the deposition zone would overlap with 50 C/cm absent a showing to the contrary. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usoskin in view of Hirata (US 2021/0323834) and Wang (US 2010/0022397) and Kaneko (US 2012/0028808).
Usoskin fails to teach the claimed repletion rate pulse energy recited in claim 14.
Kaneko, however, teaches a method of making YBCO superconductor by PLD (para. 0031) wherein the frequency (repletion rate) is 177 Hz and the energy is 500-600 mJ (para. 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the frequency (repletion rate) is 177 Hz and the energy is 500-600 mJ in Usoskin in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Kaneko.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obradors Berenguer (hereinafter Obradors; US 2010/0144536).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10; Obradors teaches a flexible high temperature superconductor (it appears that flexible is a broad term therefore, the disclosure meets this; YBCO; abstract) comprising a substrate (para. 0022) and a superconducting layer comprising YBCO and Y2O3 (Y2O3 is selected form a sufficiently small list such that Y2O3 is anticipated/rendered obvious) (having an RE1+2xBa2Cu3O7+3x; abstract, para. 0019) wherein the density of the nanoparticles is 1016 (para. 0020).
Regarding x=0.05-0.15, as Obradors teaches a substantially similar particle density, it appears that the overall composition of Obradors overlaps with the claimed invention including x=0.05-0.15.
Regarding claim 4, Obradors teaches that the morphology of the nanoparticles includes spherical particles having a range of size overlapping with the range claimed and appear to be uniform (see fig. 16; para. 0064).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obradors in view of Hayashi (US 2018/0197659).
Obradors teaches a product as described in claim 1, but fails to teach the superconductor film has a thickness of 1.5-3.5 microns.
Hayashi, however, teaches a YBCO superconductor (abstract) wherein the superconductor film has a thickness from 0.1-10 microns (para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconductor film of Obradors has a thickness from 0.1-10 microns in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Hayashi.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novozhilov (US 2020/0399754) in view of Obradors Berenguer (hereinafter Obradors; US 2010/0144536).
Regarding claims 1 and 10; Novozhilov teaches a flexible high temperature superconductor (it appears that flexible is a broad term therefore, the disclosure meets this; YBCO; abstract) comprising a substrate (para. 0050) and a superconducting layer comprising YBCO and Y2O3 (having an RE1+2xBa2Cu3O7+3x; para. 0055).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Regarding the limitation of the concentration density of at least 1016 nanoparticles/cm3, Obradors teaches the density of the nanoparticles is 1016 (para. 0020).
Novozhilov teaches that the flux pinning force is based in part of the density of the defects (para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the density of the nanoparticles is 1016 in Novozhilov in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Obradors and because Novozhilov recognizes that flux pinning force is related to the density of the defects.
Regarding claims 11, Novozhilov teaches that the lift factor at 4K, 20 T is greater than 2 (para. 0066). This range overlaps with the claimed range in claim 11. Additionally, it appears that the range for the lift factor at 20 T, 20 K of Novozhilov would necessarily overlap with the claimed range as the range of the lift factor at 4k, 20T of Novozhilov overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claims 12, Novozhilov teaches that the critical current is greater than 450 A/cm at 4K, 20T (para. 0067). This range overlaps with the claimed range in claim 12. Additionally, it appears that the range for the critical current at 20 T, 20 K of Novozhilov would necessarily overlap with the claimed range as the range of the critical current at 4k, 20T of Novozhilov overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novozhilov in view of Obradors and Hayashi (US 2018/0197659).
Novozhilov teaches a product as described in claim 1, but fails to teach the superconductor film has a thickness of 1.5-3.5 microns.
Hayashi, however, teaches a YBCO superconductor (abstract) wherein the superconductor film has a thickness from 0.1-10 microns (para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconductor film of Novozhilov has a thickness from 0.1-10 microns in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Hayashi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the dimensions and orientation of the nanoparticle as recited in claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735