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 Group I, claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14, 17-19 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
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) 1-4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-165151 in view Field (US 2018/0212136) as evidenced by Fields (“Physical and mechanical properties…”).
151 teaches a precursor for Nb3Sn single core superconducting wire (overview; para. 0025) comprising a Sn based wire rod (#3; para. 0025), a first Cu based tube covering an outer circumferential surface of the Sn-based wire rod (#2; para. 0025), an Nb based tube covering an outer surface of the first Cu-based tube (#1; para. 0025), and a second Cu based tube covering an outer surface of the Nb based tube (#4; para. 0025).
151 fails to teach that the Sn based wire rod contains a matrix phase and at least one kind of hard phase which is harder than the matrix phase wherein a maximum dimension of the hard phase in a width direction is 50% or less of a minimum dimension in the width direction of the Sn based wire rod and is equal to or smaller than a minimum thickness in the width direction of the Nb tube.
Field, however, teaches a precursor for a Nb3Sn (para. 0002) wherein a Sn core with a Cu matrix around Sn is heated to transform the hard phase (eta) into the soft matrix phase (epsilon) as much as possible for the purpose of producing maximum current density (para. 0004).
Fields states that the eta phase has a higher hardness than the epsilon phase (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sn core with a Cu matrix around Sn is heated to transform the hard phase into the soft phase as much as possible in 151 in order to produce maximum current density as taught by Field and as evidenced by Fields.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 17 ; Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the amount of hard phase in 151 to overlap with the claimed range in order to maximize the critical current density of the superconductor absent a showing of unexpected results. 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 claim 2, 151 teaches that the Sn rod comprises 12 wt% Zn (para. 0028). It appears that this value is so close to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill would expect substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 19; 151 teaches heating the precursor to produce a Nb3Sn superconductor (para. 0031-0034).
Claim(s) 5, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-165151 in view Field (US 2018/0212136) and Ohata (US 2012/0108437).
151 teaches a product as described above in claims 1, 2, 3 as described above, but fails to teach a ratio of Nb based tube relative to the cross section of the Sn based rod is between 2-4.
Ohata, however, teaches a Nb3Sn precursor (abstract) wherein the ratio of volume in the cross is 2 for the purpose of generating a Nb3Sn superconductor (para. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ratio of volume in the cross is 2 in 151 in order to generate a Nb3Sn superconductor as taught by Ohata.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-165151 in view Field (US 2018/0212136) and Wong (US 20040244185).
151 teaches a single core precursor as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach a multicore precursor as described in claim 8.
Wong, however, teaches a multicore precursor for Nb3Sn (para. 0003) wherein a multicore precursor is formed by a Cu core by bundling Cu rods (#5, 3a; para. 0013), a multilayer wire rod part by arranging single core wires with a plurality of layers over an outer circumferential side of the Cu based core part (#4, fig. 3a; para. 0013), and a third Cu based tube covering an outer circumference of the multilayer wire rod part (#8, fig. 3a; para. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a multicore precursor is formed by a Cu core by bundling Cu rods (#5, 3a; para. 0013), a multilayer wire rod part by arranging single core precursor with a plurality of layers over an outer circumferential side of the Cu based core part (#4, fig. 3a; para. 0013), and a third Cu based tube covering an outer circumference of the multilayer wire rod part in 151 in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Wong.
Additionally, 151 teaches the single core precursors as described above in claim 1.
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