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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Calvert (US 2013/0176090).
Regarding claims 1 and 26; Calvert teaches a product and method for manufacturing a formerless multi coil cylindrical superconducting magnet (abstract) comprising a providing a cylindrical mandrel (bobbin, para. 0036) providing a plurality of spacer rings attached to an outer surface of the mandrel (bobbin) at respective predetermined axial positions to provide a gap defining a volume of predetermined dimensions for winding of a coil (para. 0036-0039; fig. 2), winding a superconducting wire into the gap to form the coil (para. 0039), impregnating the coil with a thermosetting resin to provide an impregnated coil (para. 0040), causing/allowing the resin to cure to form an assembly comprising the rings and the coil (causing/allowing the resin to harden, para. 0040), and separating the bobbin from the assembly to provide a formerless multicoil, cylindrical superconducting magnet (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 2, Calvert teaches coating the outer surface of the bobbin with a release layer prior to attaching the plurality of rings (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Calvert teaches that the cylindrical mandrel (bobbin) has a conical taper of 1mm over 1 m axial length (para. 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Calvert teaches affixing end flanges to axial ends of the bobbin prior to the act of winding the wire (para. 0036).
Regarding claim 5, Calvert teaches that the end flanges define adjacent gaps and that the wire is wound into the adjacent gaps to form further coils (fig. 2, #22, 52).
Regarding claim 6-8, Calvert teaches a layer of PTFE is overlaid the bobbin (para. 0069).
Regarding claim 9, it appears that the PTFE overlaid with bobbin which is then, along with the coil, impregnated with resin and hardened appears to meet the limitation of bonded to the plurality of spacer rings and the coil to prevent cracking at interfaces between coil and the plurality of rings.
Regarding claim 10, Calvert teaches arranging the plurality of spacer rings at the respective predetermined axial positions using a number of comb tools having recesses corresponding to the respective predetermined axial positions (para. 0082)
Regarding claim 17, Calvert teaches a closure plate on an outer surface of the coil that extend over surfaces of adjacent ones of the plurality of spacer rings (para. 0040).
Regarding claim 18, 20, 24, 25, Calvert teaches the rings are attached to bobbin by providing a through hole for the spacer rings, providing a screw (pin with screw thread) in the holes and tightening the screw to retain the rings in a predetermined position with respect to the bobbin and the other spacer rings and removing/severing the pin after curing (para. 0068-0071; fig. 8A-D).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert in view of Petropoulos (US 6011394).
Calvert teaches a method as described above in claim 10, but fails to teach that the comb tools are engaged with end flanges or end plates of the mandrel prior, thereby defining the axial positions for the plurality of spacer rings.
Petropoulos, however, teaches a superconducting magnet (abstract) comprising combs positioned precisely relative to the end flanges (engaged) for the purpose of aligning the primary and secondary coil sets (col. 6, lines 2-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide combs positioned precisely relative to the end flanges (engaged) in Calvert in order to align the primary and secondary coil sets as taught by Petropoulos.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert in view of Morita (US 2016/0155554).
Calvert teaches a product as described above in claim 6, but fails to teach that the wrapper is formed by winding layers of a resin impregnated cloth onto the outer surface of the cylindrical mandrel.
Morita, however, teaches a method of producing a superconducting magnet (abstract) wherein the oxide superconductors are bound with resin impregnated cloth for the purpose of providing protection from corrosion (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the oxide superconductors of Calvert bound with resin impregnated cloth in order to provide protection from corrosion as taught by Morita.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the mandrel wrapper as the resin impregnated cloth as the coil, after mandrel removal, would benefit from corrosion protection (via the resin impregnated cloth).
Additionally regarding claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wrap multiple layers to provide corrosion protection through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to cure the impregnated material before providing the plurality of spacer rings as performing method steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert in view of Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Kashima (US 5462791).
Calvert teaches a method as described above in claim 12, but fails to teach that the wrapper is provided by winding a filament of glass fiber, and resin impregnated the filament.
Kashima, however, teaches a method of forming reinforced layers (abstract) wherein the reinforced material is formed by winding glass fibers and then impregnating with resin (col. 1, lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reinforced material of Calvert formed by winding glass fibers and then impregnating with resin in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Kashima.
Claim(s) 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert in view of Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Avant (US 4119153).
Calvert teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach introducing hardening material through each one of the through holes, causing or allowing the hardening material to harden to retain each one of the spacer rings.
Calvert teaches that a screw is proved through the holes as described above.
Avant teaches a method of holding pieces in place (abstract) wherein the pins are friable (hardenable) (col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pin of Calvert as friable in order to provide a configuration known in the art and because Calver teaches a screw/pin provided through the holes as described above.
Regarding claim 21, Calvert teaches removing the pins from the mandrel as describe above.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert in view of Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Avant (US 4119153) and Mather (US 2008/0224524).
Calvert teaches a method as described above in claim 21, but fails to teach that a portion of the pin is hollow.
Mather, however, teaches a method of attaching pieces together (abstract) wherein the pins are hollow (para. 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pins as hollow in Calvert in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Mather.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calvert in view of Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Avant (US 4119153) and Jackson (US 6035497).
Calvert teaches a method as described above in claim 21, but fails to teach that the pin is notched at a position corresponding to a shear plane.
Jackson, however, teaches a method for attaching pieces together (abstract) wherein a pin is notched for the purpose of controlling the amount of force required to break the pin/connection (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pin of Calvert is notched in order to control the amount of force required to break the pin/connection as taught by Jackson.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 17-18, 20, 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view of Calvert.
626 teaches a substantially similar method as claim 1.
626 fails to teach providing spacer rings attached to an outer surface of the mandrel for defining a volume for the winding of the coil.
Calvert, however, teaches providing a plurality of spacer rings attached to an outer surface of the mandrel (bobbin) at respective predetermined axial positions to provide a gap defining a volume of predetermined dimensions for winding of a coil (para. 0036-0039; fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of spacer rings attached to an outer surface of the mandrel (bobbin) at respective predetermined axial positions in 626 to provide a gap defining a volume of predetermined dimensions for winding of a coil as taught by Calvert.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view of Calvert and Petropoulos (US 6011394).
626 teaches a method as described above in claim 10, but fails to teach that the comb tools are engaged with end flanges or end plates of the mandrel prior, thereby defining the axial positions for the plurality of spacer rings.
Petropoulos, however, teaches a superconducting magnet (abstract) comprising combs positioned precisely relative to the end flanges (engaged) for the purpose of aligning the primary and secondary coil sets (col. 6, lines 2-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide combs positioned precisely relative to the end flanges (engaged) in 626.
Claims 12-14, 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view of Calvert and Morita (US 2016/0155554).
626 teaches a product as described above in claim 6, but fails to teach that the wrapper is formed by winding layers of a resin impregnated cloth onto the outer surface of the cylindrical mandrel.
Morita, however, teaches a method of producing a superconducting magnet (abstract) wherein the oxide superconductors are bound with resin impregnated cloth for the purpose of providing protection from corrosion (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the oxide superconductors of 626 bound with resin impregnated cloth in order to provide protection from corrosion as taught by Morita.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the mandrel wrapper as the resin impregnated cloth as the coil, after mandrel removal, would benefit from corrosion protection (via the resin impregnated cloth).
Additionally regarding claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wrap multiple layers to provide corrosion protection through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to cure the impregnated material before providing the plurality of spacer rings as performing method steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view of Calvert and Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Kashima (US 5462791).
626 teaches a method as described above in claim 12, but fails to teach that the wrapper is provided by winding a filament of glass fiber, and resin impregnated the filament.
Kashima, however, teaches a method of forming reinforced layers (abstract) wherein the reinforced material is formed by winding glass fibers and then impregnating with resin (col. 1, lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reinforced material of 626 formed by winding glass fibers and then impregnating with resin in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Kashima.
Claims 19, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view Calvert and Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Avant (US 4119153).
626 teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach introducing hardening material through each one of the through holes, causing or allowing the hardening material to harden to retain each one of the spacer rings.
Calvert teaches that a screw is proved through the holes as described above.
Avant teaches a method of holding pieces in place (abstract) wherein the pins are friable (hardenable) (col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pin of 626 as friable in order to provide a configuration known in the art and because Calver teaches a screw/pin provided through the holes as described above.
Regarding claim 21, Calvert teaches removing the pins from the mandrel as describe above.
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view of Calvert and Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Avant (US 4119153) and Mather (US 2008/0224524).
626 teaches a method as described above in claim 21, but fails to teach that a portion of the pin is hollow.
Mather, however, teaches a method of attaching pieces together (abstract) wherein the pins are hollow (para. 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pins as hollow in 626 in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Mather.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12469626 in view of Calvert and Morita (US 2016/0155554) and Avant (US 4119153) and Jackson (US 6035497).
Calvert teaches a method as described above in claim 21, but fails to teach that the pin is notched at a position corresponding to a shear plane.
Jackson, however, teaches a method for attaching pieces together (abstract) wherein a pin is notched for the purpose of controlling the amount of force required to break the pin/connection (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pin of Calvert is notched in order to control the amount of force required to break the pin/connection as taught by Jackson.
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