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) 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 51,52, 53, 58, 59, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838).
Regarding claims 31-32, 37-39, Fritzemeier teaches a method of manufacturing a HTS field coil from one or more HTS tapes including a HTS material layer (abstract, para. 0118, fig. 1, #11a, 11b), the method comprising winding the tape about an axis to form a field coil including windings of HTS tape (winding the tape in a helical fashion around a cylindrical form; para. 0134), and removing material from an axial edge of the tape around at least a part of one of the windings to reduce the extent of the tape along the axis of the coil (patterning of HTS tapes by removing via mechanical cutting or chemical treatment, etc. ; para. 0134).
Regarding claim 51-52, Fritzemeier teaches a HTS field coil including windings of one or more HTS tapes about an axis of the coil (abstract, para. 0118, fig. 1, #11a, 11b), each tape including a flexible substrate (para. 0029, 0030), an intermediate layer provided on a face of the substrate (insulator buffer layer; para. 0010), and an HTS layer provided on the intermediate layer (para. 0118), at least one of the tapes being configured such that there is no electrically conductive pathway extending radially across the intermediate layer for one or more of the windings (buffer layer is an insulator; para. 0118), whereby the HTS layer in the tapes of the windings is at least partially electrically insulated from an HTS layer in an adjacent winding by the intermediate layer (insulated by the buffer layer between adjacent windings of the plural tap structure; para. 0118).
Regarding claim 53, Fritzemeier teaches that the tape includes electrically conductive cladding connected the HTS material layer (cap layer; para. 0118), wherein the cladding does not extend radially across the intermediate layer at least in a radial portion radially outside a first current point and radially inside a second current connection point (para. 0124).
Regarding claim 58-59, Fritzemeier teaches a conductor element including an electrical contact surface through which to supply electric current to a portion of at least one of the windings, the surface providing electrical contact between the conductor element and axial edge of the field coil (solder 20 meets an electrical surface fig. 1B, #20; para. 0123).
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) 36, 43, 44, 45, 55-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838) in view of Xie (US 2012/065074).
Fritzemeier teaches a method as described above in claim 31, but fails to teach sealing the edge of the one or more of the HTS tapes with an insulator or conductor material (claim 36).
Xie, however, teaches a method of making a superconductor (abstract) wherein the edges of the HTS are sealed by a conductor material (para. 0038-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the edges of the HTS are sealed by a conductor material in Fritzemeier in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Xie.
Regarding claims 43, 55-56, Xie teaches winding a cable having two outer HTS tapes and one or more internal tapes , the internal tapes being arranged between the outer tapes and having a metal cladding that provides an electrically conductive pathway between the HTS layers of the two HTS tapes (fig. 5, para. 0044-0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cable having two outer HTS tapes and one or more internal tapes , the internal tapes being arranged between the outer tapes and having a metal cladding that provides an electrically conductive pathway between the HTS layers of the two HTS tapes in Fritzemeier in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Xie.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, it would have been obvious to vary the extent of the internal and external tapes based on the desired current flow through the cable structure absent a showing of unexpected results. Additionally, Xie teaches that the edges of the internal tape and the outer tape are aligned along an edge of the cable (fig. 5).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier.
Fritzemeier teaches a method as described above in claim 31, but fails to teach cooling the HTS coil during the step of removing the material from the axial edge of the one more HTS tapes. However, during the operation of the HTS tape, the tape is cooled. It would have been obvious to cut the tape during, before, or after cooling as order of steps is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C).
Claim(s) 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier in view of Hong (US 8178473).
Fritzemeier teaches a method as described above in claim 31, but fails to teach that the removing includes cutting through the coil to divide the HTS field coil into two more coils.
Hong, however, teaches a method of making a superconductor magnet comprising cutting a superconducting coil into two coils for the purpose of producing a superconductor wire coil without a joint (abstract; col. 4, line 60-col. 5, line 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide cutting a superconducting coil into two coils in Fritzemeier in order to produce a superconductor wire coil without a joint as taught by Hong.
Regarding claim 42, Hong teaches an electrical connection between the two coils to form a solenoid (col. 6, lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 46, 50, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838) in view of Noonan (US 2007/0152788).
Fritzemeier teaches a method as described above in claim 44, but fails to teach potting the field coil.
Noonan, however, teaches a superconductor electromagnet (abstract) wherein the superconducting coil is potted (para. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coil of Fritzemeier potted in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Noonan.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to pot the field coil before removing material absent unexpected results. Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C).
Regarding claim 50, Fritzemeier teaches that the tapes are wound around the cylindrical form in a helical fashion (meets limitation of being parallel to one another and perpendicular to the central axis; para. 0134).
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838) in view of Thieme (US 2006/073979).
Fritzemeier teaches a product as described above in claim 51, but fails to teach an electrical insulator material provided on one or more axial edges of the one more tapes.
Thieme, however, teaches a superconductor (abstract) wherein an electrical insulator material provided on one or more axial edges of the one more tapes based on the desired end use of the product (high resistivity alloy, 270; para. 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an electrical insulator material provided on one or more axial edges of the one more tapes of Fritzemeier based on the desired end use of the product as taught by Thieme.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838) in view of Donaldson (US 3665351).
Fritzemeier teaches a product as described above in claim 51, but fails to teach an electromagnet including one or more of the field coils. Donaldson, however, teaches a superconductor tape solenoid (abstract) wherein an electromagnet comprises superconducting tapes wound into coils (col. 1, lines 5-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an electromagnet comprises superconducting tapes of Fritzemeier wound into coils in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Donaldson.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838) in view of Katsurai (US 4151498).
Fritzemeier teaches a product as described above in claim 51, but fails to teach a plasma vessel and a set of field coils for generating a magnetic field within the plasma vessel, each field coil being an HTS coil according to claim 51.
Katsurai, however, teaches a superconducting coil (abstract) wherein a plasma vessel comprising multiple superconducting coils generates a magnetic field (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plasma vessel comprising multiple superconducting coils of Fritzemeier generating a magnetic field in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Katsurai.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzemeier (US 2002/0144838) in view of Oqab (US 2020/0389055).
Fritzemeier teaches a product as described above in claim 51, but fails to teach a satellite, etc. including one or more HTS field coils according to claim 51.
Oqab, however, teaches an aircraft system (abstract) wherein the energy storage system comprises superconducting coils (para. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an aircraft system (abstract) wherein the energy storage system comprises superconducting coils of Fritzemeier in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Oqab.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-35 and 47-49 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 33 in combination with the limitations of claim 31.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 47 in combination with the limitations of claim 31.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 48 in combination with the limitations of claim 31.
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