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 in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted that in the response applicant states that Group I is elected without traverse and that this reads on claims 1-26, 28-38. However, Group I is limited to claims 1-16 and an examination of those claims are included herein.
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) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 (see attached translation) in view of JP H07-183582.
Regarding claims 1, 4; 5322 teaches a magnet system (fig. 19) comprising a coil having first and second terminals (fig. 19, #75; terminals at the end of the coils in fig. 19) comprising a plurality of windings comprising a high temperature superconductor coupled between first and second terminals (fig. 11, #46, 47; para. 0147-0149; superconductor wire wound multiple windings), conductive material disposed therebetween in electrical contact with the plurality of windings (para. 0179, fig. 16, #66; metal tape inserted between windings of wire 65), a bypass circuit (PCS) coupled to the first and second terminals of the coil in parallel with the windings comprising a current carrying path.
322 fails to teach two or more current carrying paths arranged in parallel.
582, however, teaches a persistent current switch for a superconducting magnet (para. 0001) wherein the current switch comprises parallel current carrying paths for the purpose of shunting evenly the current and inductance of 1.2 times or less than self-inductance of other permanent current switches (abstract; para. 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the current switch of 322 comprises parallel current carrying paths in order to shunt evenly the current and inductance of 1.2 times or less than self-inductance of other permanent current switches as taught by 582.
Additionally, the PCS of 582 comprises resistors in the parallel current paths (fig. 2). Therefore, it appears that any resistance of the individual resistors would determine the resistance characteristic of the bypass circuit.
Regarding claim 2, 322 teaches no insulation between the windings as discussed above (para. 0179, fig. 16, #66; metal tape inserted between windings of wire 65).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Morita (US 2003/0051901).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the bypass circuit is coupled to the first and second terminals of the coil via a superconducting bus.
Morita, however, teaches superconductor electrical connections (abstract) wherein a superconducting bus connects superconductor coils to other parts of the apparatus (para. 0083, 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a superconducting bus in 322 in order to connect superconductor coils to other parts of the apparatus (such as a PCS) as taught by Morita.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Babb (US 2011/0101950).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach a resistor in series with the switch wherein the switch is a transistor.
Babb, however, teaches an impedance stabilizer (abstract) wherein a switch comprises a field effect transistor in series with a resistor (para. 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the switch of 322 as a field effect transistor in series with a resistor in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Babb.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Babb (US 2011/0101950) and Rajput-Ghoshal (US 2014/0185165).
322 teaches a product as described in claim 6, but fails to teach that the transistor is a MOSFET.
Ghoshal, however, teaches a superconductor magnet apparatus (abstract) wherein the transistor in the switch comprises a MOSFET (para. 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the transistor in 322 as a MOSFET in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Ghoshal.
Regarding claim 8, 582 teaches there are plural current paths as described above in claim 1. It appears that this teaching overlaps with the limitation of at least one hundred current paths.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Nemoto (US 5432669).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 4, but fails to teach the switch is an open state when the superconducting material is above its critical temperature, and the switch is in a closed state when the material is below its critical temperature.
Nemoto, however, teaches a superconducting magnet (abstract) wherein the persistent switch is in a closed state when the switch has zero resistance and open when the switch has resistance (col. 12, lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the persistent switch of 322 in a closed state when the switch has zero resistance and open when the switch has resistance in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Nemoto.
Additionally, regarding claim 9 and 12, 322 teaches that the PCS comprises superconductor material (para. 0200). Therefore, it would have been obvious to further provide that when above the critical temperature/field (resistance) the switch would be open and that when below critical temperature/field (zero resistance) the switch would be closed.
Regarding claim 10, 322 teaches that the PCS comprises a heater (para. 0200).
Regarding claim 11, 582 teaches there are plural current paths as described above in claim 1. It appears that this teaching overlaps with the limitation of at least one ten current paths.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Nemoto (US 5432669) and Li (“Persistent Current Switch for HTS superconducting magnets…”).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 12, but fails to teach a movable permanent magnet for opening/closing the switch.
Li, however, teaches persistent current switch (abstract) wherein the switch includes an electromagnet wherein the open/close is controlled by an electromagnet (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the switch of 322 includes an electromagnet in order to provide the open/close is controlled by an electromagnet as taught by Li.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Le Neel (US 8598681).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the bypass circuit comprises a normally conducting resistor whose resistance may be varied by controlling its temperature.
Le Neel, however, teaches a temperature switch (abstract) comprising a resistor whose resistance is controlled by varying temperature (col. 3, line 45-col. 4, line 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the switch of 322 comprising a resistor whose resistance is controlled by varying temperature in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Le Neel.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Nakagawa (US 2014/0357491).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach further including a resistor in series with the plurality of windings.
Nakagawa, however, teaches a superconducting magnet (abstract) comprising a bobbin (resistor) in series with a plurality of windings for the purpose of providing a protective resistor to the windings (para. 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a bobbin (resistor) in series with the plurality of windings in 322 in order to provide a protective resistor to the windings as taught by Nakagawa.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-277322 in view of JP H07-183582 and Amano (US 2019/0362874).
322 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach a controller for opening/closing the controllable, current paths in the bypass circuit, the controller operatively coupled to a magnetic field sensor for measuring a magnetic field produced by the windings.
Amano, however, teaches a superconducting magnet (abstract) wherein a controller for controlling the PCS is coupled with a magnetic field sensor for the superconducting magnet windings (para. 0060-0067) for the purpose of operating the superconducting coil (para. 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller for controlling the PCS is coupled with a magnetic field sensor for the superconducting magnet windings in 322 in order to operate the superconducting coil as taught by Amano.
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
Prosecution Insights