Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/911,270

Emergency Shutdown of A No-Insulation Magnet

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2022
Priority
Mar 26, 2020 — provisional 63/000,406 +1 more
Examiner
WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
541 granted / 844 resolved
-0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
871
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
77.6%
+37.6% vs TC avg
§102
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 844 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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) 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (“Development of the current bypassing methods into the transverse direction…”). In view of Morita (US 6344956) Tanaka teaches a no-insulation magnet (2. Experiment and setup) comprising a superconducting coil having electrical terminals for coupling to a power supply, wherein receipt of a current from the supply through the terminals causes the coil to generate a magnetic field (fig. 1: a pancake HTS coil with current leads A and B), a heating element disposed in proximity to a portion of the superconducting coil wherein operation of the element causes the portion to lose its superconducting characteristic and become resistive, thereby inducing a quench of the NI magnet, Tanaka fails to teach a resistive bypass wire coupled between the terminals of the coil. Morita, however, teaches a superconducting coil (abstract; col. 5, lines 35-47) wherein a bypass is placed between two terminals of the superconducting coil for the purpose of providing quench protection (provided on the elemental line, therefore between the terminals of the coil; col. 4, lines 20-65, col. 5, lines 35-47) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide bypass wire placed between two terminals of the superconducting coil of Tanka in order to provide quench protection as taught by Morita. Additionally, it appears that any material contemplated by Morita meets the limitation of resistive as every material has some amount of resistivity. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 20-38 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a superconductive bypass wire between terminals which is activated by a cooler. Specifically, Morita teaches a bypass, but fails to teach that the bypass attached to the terminals is superconducting. See above citations. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12671015
PROCESSES, SYSTEMS AND DEVICES FOR METAL FILLING OF HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTOR CABLES
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12657496
RESONATOR, OSCILLATOR, AND QUANTUM COMPUTER
4y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12658346
QUENCH PROTECTION CIRCUIT FOR SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNET SYSTEM BASED ON DISTRIBUTED HEATER NETWORK
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12658347
SUPERCONDUCTOR ELECTROMAGNET
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12652965
TEMPERATURE SENSING OF REGIONS WITHIN A SUPERCONDUCTING INTEGRATED CIRCUIT USING IN-SITU RESONATORS
5y 2m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+18.4%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 844 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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