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) 1-1 3 , 17-18, 20-24, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1/a2 as being anticipated by JP 2019-102298 . Regarding claims 1 and 8; 298 teaches a method , and a product produced thereby, comprising inserting a HTS cable into a groove of a support structure (para. 0018- 0019) and flowing a molten metal into the HTS cable while the HTS cable is in the groove (para. 0022-0023). Regarding claims 2, 4, 9, 23, 24, 27, 298 teaches flowing molten metal into the jacket that houses the superconducting cable and cooling the molten metal to solidify (para. 0022). Regarding claims 3, 20, 21, 298 teaches that the groove has a spiral shape and the cable is inserted in the groove (para. 0019). Regarding claims 5-7, 22, 2 9 8 teaches plurality of support structures to form the helical coil (these support structures would necessarily be connected; fig. 3b, para. 0019). Regarding claim 10 -1 3 , 298 teaches that the superconductor cable (HTS stack) which is fitted with a former (spring) and then fits in the groove /channels (para. 001 7 - 0 020 ; fig. 3a ). Regarding claims 17, 298 teaches that a cooling pipe is provided along the superconductor when it is wound (para. 0023). Regarding claims 18 and 26, 298 teaches that the superconductors can be freely twisted (as the stack is inserted in the groove, it is arranged to slip along the length of the cable; para. 0006, 0018-0020) . 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) 13- 14, 16 , 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-102298 in view of Yanagi (“Feasibility of HTS Magnet Option…”) . 298 teaches a product as described above in claim 8, but fails to teach the cable comprises a former separating at least first and second HTS stacks. Yanagi, however, teaches a superconducting coil (abstract) wherein the stacks are housed in a former comprising steel (fig. 2, page 2, right column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the former of 298 as steel in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Yanagi. Regarding claim 25, Yanagi teaches that the former is a plate (fig. 3). Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-102298 in view of Yanagi (“Feasibility of HTS Magnet Option…”) and Yanagi2 (“Progress of the Design of HTS magnet option…”) . 298 teaches a product as described above in claim 8, but fails to teach an electrical insulator insulating sections of the former from each other . Yanagi2, however, teaches a superconducting coil (abstract) wherein a layer of insulation is provided within the former (fig. 1a, 1b; page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a layer of insulation is provided within the former of 298 in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Yanagi2. Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-102298 in view of Takayasu (“Conductor Characterization of YBCO…”) . 298 teaches a product as described above in claim 8, but fails to teach the support structure comprises an electrically conductive material. Takayasu, however, teaches a superconductor coil (abstract) wherein the support structure comprises aluminum (B. Pentagon Coil Test). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the support structure of 298 as aluminum in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Takayasu. 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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-38 of U.S. Patent No. 11948704 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope . Claims 2- 7 , 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-38 of U.S. Patent No. 11948704 in view of JP JP 2019-102298 . 704 recites an invention as described above regarding claim 1. Regarding the dependent claims, 298 teaches the limitations as discussed above regarding claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 704 with the teachings of 298 in order to provide process parameters known in the art as taught by 298. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5957 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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