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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group II [it is noted that claims 1-15 are canceled ] , and species A1, claim 22 - in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the burden to search all groups/species is not undue and, in accordance with the MPEP, Claims 16-27 should be examined on the merits - is found persuasive . Therefore, claims 16-27 are considered and examined as shown below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention: The statement “ vertical legs at each half period traveling between ports of a machine ” is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. 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. Claims 16 - 19 | 21 | 23 | 25 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leuer US 4921661 A [Leuer] . Regarding claim 16 , Leuer teaches A runaway electron mitigation coil (REMC) comprising: an upper horizontal leg [see L1-L3, FIG. 4] ; a lower horizontal leg [ see L1’-L3’, FIG. 4] ; and at least one vertical leg [SEE T1-T3 AND B1-B3, FIG. 4] coupled between the upper and lower horizontal legs [FIG. 4] , wherein the upper and lower horizontal legs are configured such that the REMC functions as a passive REMC [C. 6 teaches that saddle-shaped passive stabilization conductor loops 23 are placed on the modules 11 shown in FIGS. 1a and 1b that line the plasma vessel wall 12 as more clearly shown in FIG. 3.] . Regarding claim 17 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 16 configured for outboard side mounting in a vacuum vessel [see 23 in vacuum vessel 12, FIG, 1a] . Regarding claim 18 [as best understood], Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 16 comprising vertical legs [SEE T1-T3 AND B1-B3, FIG. 4] between upper and lower horizontal legs [FIG. 4] . Regarding claim 19 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 16 wherein the upper and lower horizontal legs [see L1-L3, L1’-L3’, FIG. 4] and the at least one vertical leg [SEE T1-T3 AND B1-B3, FIG. 4] are configured to reside in a vacuum vessel [ 12 ] while avoiding ports [14 and 15] provided in the vacuum vessel. Regarding claim 21 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 16 wherein: the upper horizontal leg is a first one of a plurality of upper horizontal legs [see L1-L3, FIG. 4] ; the lower horizontal leg is a first one of a plurality of lower horizontal legs [see L1’-L3’, FIG. 4] ; and at least one vertical leg coupled between at least one of the plurality of upper horizontal legs and at least one of the plurality of lower horizontal legs [SEE T1-T3 AND B1-B3, FIG. 4] . Regarding claim 23 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 21 , wherein a plurality of vertical legs [SEE T1-T3 AND B1-B3, FIG. 4] are coupled between at least one of the plurality of upper horizontal legs [see L1-L3, FIG. 4] and at least one of the plurality of lower horizontal legs [see L1’-L3’, FIG. 4] . Regarding claim 25 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 24 , comprising a plurality of vertical legs [SEE T1-T3 AND B1-B3, FIG. 4] , each of the plurality of vertical legs coupled to one of the plurality of upper horizontal legs [see L1-L3, FIG. 4] and to one of the plurality of lower horizontal legs [see L1’-L3’, FIG. 4] . Regarding claim 26 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 21 , wherein the plurality of upper horizontal legs [see L1-L3, FIG. 4] are arranged along paths defined by a surface of a torus along a poloidal direction [ see L1-L3, FIG. 4 ] . Regarding claim 27 , Leuer teaches The REMC of claim 21 , wherein each of the plurality of upper horizontal legs [see L1-L3, FIG. 4] and each of the plurality of lower horizontal legs [see L1’-L3’, FIG. 4] have the same length [fig. 4] . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 | 22 | 24 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 arts of record when considered as a whole, alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of – Regarding claim 20 , a switching element electrically coupled to at least one of: the upper horizontal leg; the lower horizontal leg; and a vertical leg. Regarding claim 22 , the upper horizontal leg is arranged along a toroidal direction of a torus at a first poloidal angle; and the lower horizontal leg is arranged along the toroidal direction of the torus at a second poloidal angle, different from the first poloidal angle. Regarding claim 24 , the plurality of upper horizontal legs are each arranged along a toroidal direction of a torus at a first poloidal angle; and the plurality of lower horizontal legs are each arranged along the toroidal direction of the torus at a second poloidal angle, different from the first poloidal angle. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See (PTO-892) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MOHAMAD A MUSLEH whose telephone number is ( FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9086 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 3985 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is ( 571) 273-8300 . Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) . If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000 . /Mohamad A Musleh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837