DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kotaro et al. (JP 09-027416).
Regarding claims 29-30, Kotaro discloses magnet comprising a plurality of plates, each of the plates having a flat surface opposite a grooved surface, each of the plates comprising a conductor ([0012], claim 5: plurality of superconducting wires, wherein the examiner is taking the position of one of the stranded wire corresponds to the claimed conductor) that passes through grooves in the grooved surface, wherein the plurality of plates includes a first plate and a second plate arranged such that the flat surface of the first plate and the flat surface of the second plate both lie, and in contact, between the grooved surface of the first plate and the grooved surface of the second plate (please see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternative to anticipation, Kotaro fails to explicitly disclose that each of the plates comprising a conductor.
However, Kotaro discloses that a superconducting coil comprises a large number of superconducting wires that are twisted together to form a superconducting stranded wire [0012]. Additionally, not only Kotaro discloses superconducting stranded wire, Kotaro also discloses a plurality of cable-in-conduit conductors that can also be twisted [0015], wherein each conduit comprises of superconducting stranded wires.
Kotaro fails to explicitly disclose the degree of how it is twisted or the number of revolutions it is twisted of the superconducting wires so that each plate comprises a conductor so that each of the plates comprising at least one superconducting wire.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the twisting and the number of the superconducting wires so that at least one superconducting wire is present at each plate, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed structure is critical and has unexpected results.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the layout of at least one superconducting wire of the superconducting stranded wire so that it is present at each plate, since Kotaro discloses a concept that a superconductor structure must be present at the groove in order to obtain a high-performance superconducting coil in a high-magnetic field and large sized superconducting coil with excellent superconducting performance [0043].
Regarding claim 31, Kotaro discloses that the plates comprise of an insulation material, thereby Kotaro discloses the flat surface of the first plate and second plate contact opposing sides of a layer of insulation. Alternatively, Kotaro also discloses that the plates can be coated with an insulation material [0026].
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaro et al. (JP 09-027416) in view of Takayashi et al. (US 8437819).
Kotaro discloses a conductor being superconductor and circular, however, fails to disclose a stack of high temperature superconductor tapes being used to make the cable as well as being square cross-section.
Takayashi discloses circular and square shaped cross-section HTS cables are known in the art (YBCO and BSCCO materials, All Figs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotaro’s superconductor to be of circular or square shaped cross-section HTS tapes, as suggested by Takayashi, in order to make the conductor of Kotaro to allow for higher temperature superconducting operation and thus reduce cooling requirements.
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.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mukai et al. (US 5,719,106) (or in view of JP 55-125601).
Regarding claims 29-30, Mukai discloses a magnet comprising a plurality of plates (1), each of the plates having a flat surface opposite a groove surface, each of the plates comprising a conductor that passes through grooves in the grooved surface (Fig. 2). Although Mukai discloses that the plurality of plates is stacked with each other, Mukai fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of plates includes a first plate and a second plate arranged such that the flat surface of the first plate and the flat surface of the second plate both lie, and in contact, between the grooved surface of the first plate and the grooved surface of the second plate. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to stack configuration as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that the stacking can be of three configurations (1: flat surface to flat surface, 2: flat surface to groove surface or 3: groove surface to groove surface). Thus, choice of the claimed stacking such that the flat side of first and second plates are in direct contact to each other, given only three alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively, JP ‘601 disclose a plurality of plates, wherein the outer plates (12B and 12C) having a flat surface opposite a grooved surface, each of the outer plates comprising a conductor (10) that passes through grooves in the grooved surface, wherein the plurality of plates includes a first plate (12B) and a second plate arranged such that the flat surface of the first plate and the flat surface of the second plate both lie between the grooved surface of the first plate and the grooved surface of the second plate (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukai’s plates such that the groove surfaces of the plates are facing in an outward direction, thereby the flat surface of the first plate and the flat surface of the second plate both lie between the grooved surface of the first plate and the grooved surface of the second plate, since Mukai discloses that this structure capable of sufficiently withstanding the huge electromagnetic force.
Regarding claim 31, Mukai and JP 55-125601 disclose that the plates comprise of an insulation material, thereby Mukai (or in view of JP 55-125601) discloses the flat surface of the first plate and second plate contact opposing sides of a layer of insulation.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (US 5,719,106), (or in view of JP 55-125601), in view of Takayashi et al. (US 8437819).
Mukai (in view of JP 55-125601) discloses a conductor being superconductor, however, fails to disclose a stack of high temperature superconductor tapes being used to make the cable as well as being circular or square cross-section.
Takayashi discloses circular and square shaped cross-section HTS cables are known in the art (YBCO and BSCCO materials, All Figs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukai (in view of JP 55-125601)’s superconductor to be of circular or square shaped cross-section HTS tapes, as suggested by Takayashi, in order to make the conductor of Mukai (in view of JP 55-125601) to allow for higher temperature superconducting operation and thus reduce cooling requirements.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (JP H11-3814A).
Regarding claims 29-30, Tsukamoto discloses a magnet comprising a plurality of plates (1), each of the plates having a flat surface opposite a groove surface, each of the plates comprising a conductor that passes through grooves in the grooved surface (Fig. 4-6). Tsukamoto discloses multiple embodiments of the plates’ arrangement, including the plurality of plates includes a first plate and a second plate arranged such that the flat surface of the first plate overlies the groove surface of a second plate as illustrated in Fig. 6. Further, Tsukamoto also discloses an embodiment wherein a plate (1) comprising an upper stratum comprising groove surface and flat surface and a lower stratum comprising of a groove surface and a flat surface (Fig. 7). However, Tsukamoto fails to explicitly disclose that plate (1) is defined as two (sub)-plates.
However, given that dependent claim 30 discloses that the flat surface of the first plate contacts the flat surface of the second plate and that the claim doesn’t recite specific material and structure that distinguish between two directly in contact flat surfaces of the plates, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the first plated layer and the second plated layer would behave similarly to that of a single continuous structure, since the flat surfaces of each of the layer are in directly in contact with each and are of the same material. Please see the annotated figure below that the claimed invention (annotated dashed rectangle box) is similarly to that of Tsukamoto’s Fig. 7. Therefore, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of plate 1 of Tsukamoto would correspond to the claimed first plate and the bottom stratum of Tsukamoto’s plate 1 would correspond to the claimed second plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
579
1147
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, Tsukamoto discloses multiple embodiments of the plates’ arrangement, including the plurality of plates includes a first plate and a second plate arranged such that the flat surface of the first plate overlies the groove surface of a second plate as illustrated in Fig. 6. Tsukamoto also discloses another embodiment wherein a plate (1) comprising an upper stratum comprising groove surface and flat surface and a lower stratum comprising of a groove surface and a flat surface (Fig. 7).
Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine features of multiple plates (Fig. 4-6) to form the overall layout in Fig. 7, such that the plurality of plates includes a first plate and a second plate arranged such that the flat surface of the first plate and the flat surface of the second plate both lie, and in contact, between the grooved surface of the first plate and the grooved surface of the second plate, as a functionally equivalent design option with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable magnet.
Regarding claim 31, Tsukamoto disclose that the plates comprise of an insulation material, thereby Tsukamoto discloses the flat surface of the first plate and second plate contact opposing sides of a layer of insulation.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (JP H113814A) in view of Takayashi et al. (US 8437819).
Tsukamoto discloses a square-shaped conductor being superconductor, however, fails to disclose a stack of high temperature superconductor tapes being used to make the cable as well as being circular cross-section.
Takayashi discloses circular and square shaped cross-section HTS cables are known in the art (YBCO and BSCCO materials, All Figs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukamoto’s superconductor to be of circular or square shaped cross-section HTS tapes, as suggested by Takayashi, in order to make the conductor of Tsukamoto to allow for higher temperature superconducting operation and thus reduce cooling requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over JP 55-125601 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground of rejections is made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785