Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/872,833

ENHANCEMENT OF SUPERCONDUCTIVITY VIA RESONANT ANTI-SHIELDING

Non-Final OA §101§103§112
Filed
Jul 25, 2022
Examiner
WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Trustees of Boston College
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 832 resolved
-1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
863
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 832 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103 §112
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 1-15 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Interpretation While the claims do not expressly require a “room temperature superconductor”, the claims require a high temperature superconductor. The accompanying disclosure only mentions superconductivity ranges that encompass room temperature; no other temperatures are discussed, contemplated, or disclosed for the claimed materials. See specification at page 5, [0020] “The SC superlattice structure 10 enhances a critical temperature of the superconductor layer 14 by about three to six times the unmodified transition temperature of the superconductor”. Therefore, the claimed invention is interpreted as encompassing room temperature superconductivity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. The claims encompass room temperature superconductors, which are mere theoretical materials and currently under known principles of physics and chemistry cannot exist according to conventional scientific theory/No assertions of room temperature superconductivity have currently been recognized or verified by the scientific community. Given this combined with the issues discussed below and lack of enablement, the disclosed invention appears to be inoperable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The factors relied upon to make a determination of enablement include, but are not limited to: PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (A) The breadth of the claims; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (B) The nature of the invention; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (C) The state of the prior art; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (E) The level of predictability in the art; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (G) The existence of working examples; and PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale See MPEP 2164. In the instant case, the breadth of the claims includes room temperature superconductors. The nature of the invention is room temperature superconductivity. The state of the prior art does not include room temperature superconductivity; room temperature superconductivity exists as no more than a theoretical possibility. The superconductor art has a high level of unpredictability. The amount of direction provided by the inventor does not provide sufficient written description to convey that applicant was in possession of such material, nor does it sufficiently provide details to enable one skilled in the art to make or use the material as claimed. Additionally, data indicating room temperature superconductivity has not been provided. There are no examples in which a room temperature product was experimentally produced and tested in the instant specification. Additionally, the materials for the phonon modifier layer are not described but for the properties of the layer. See specification at [0042]. In light of the highly unpredictable nature of the superconductor art, and in particular as yet unproven room temperature superconductivity, the bar for disclosure is extremely high such that this disclosure is insufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to produce the claimed invention given the limited guidance on claimed aspects of the invention (ex. No working examples and no data demonstrating room temperature superconductivity) and lack of experimental examples and data. Additionally, the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention is prohibitive given the nature of the predictability in the art, level of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of invention, and the breadth of the claims. In summary, given that room temperature superconductivity exists as no more than a theoretical possibility, the disclosure provided does not provide sufficient written description to convey that applicant was in possession of such material, nor does it sufficiently provide details to enable one skilled in the art to make or use the material as claimed. 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US 2016/0351303). Regarding claims 1, 3, 11; Gilbert teaches a superconductor structure (abstract) comprising a superconductor (YBCO, abstract) and a material adjacent to the superconductor, the material including compounds of bismuth and selenium, inter alia (para. 0136; fig. 41). As the list of elements is small and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the elements and compounds that raise the transition temperature (para. 0074) it would have been obvious to select Bi2Se3 through routine experimentation. Additionally regarding the properties described in claims 1-2, 4-10, as the materials of the prior art are substantially similar to that of the invention (specification at pages 5-6, [0021, 0022]), it appears that the properties of the claimed invention including the material having a dielectric response that supports a plasmon or plasmon-polaron mode, etc. would necessarily be present in the prior art absent a showing to the contrary. Regarding claims 12-15, Gilbert teaches an insulating material between the superconductor (ELR) and the modifying material (para. 0176; fig. 41). Regarding the properties of the insulating material (phonon modifier), the phonon modifier is an insulating material such that it appears that the properties of claims 12-15 are necessarily present absent a showing to the contrary. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 25, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598921
THIN FILM HAVING SINGLE-CRYSTAL-LEVEL CRYSTAL ORIENTATION PROPERTY, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND PRODUCT USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592332
HTS LINKED PARTIAL INSULATION FOR HTS FIELD COILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589993
METHODS FOR PHOTOCATALYTIC WATER SPLITTING OF PRODUCED WATERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584522
HTS BEARING AND FLYWHEEL SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580109
SUPERCONDUCTING COIL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+18.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 832 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month