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 § 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 6 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.
Claim 6 does not recite the base claim (i.e. the claim which claim 6 depends upon). Claim 6 will be interpreted as depending from claim 3.
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) 1-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Stemmle (US 2012/0295792).
Stemmle teaches a multiple phase superconducting cable system (at least two cables meets limitation of four superconducting cables; claim 1) wherein interrupting switches are arranged at respective first and second ends of the superconducting cables (the current path in the connection between two cables can be closed which meets an interrupting switch; para. 0016), and a connecting switch connected at a first and second end of the fourth (alternate) superconducting cable (pipeline 3 with a superconducting cable can be equipped to fully replace the cryostat with the failed superconducting cable; para. 0016), the interrupting and connecting switches operable to selectively disconnect one of the superconducting cables from the electrical phase and to connect the alternate cable to the previously disconnected electrical phase effectively replacing the disconnected cable (para. 0033-0036).
Regarding claims 2, Stemmle teaches the cables in a separate cryogenic pipe (envelope) wherein each of the pipes have a shut off valve at the first and second ends (para. 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 3; Stemmle also teaches a first cooling system is provided which feeds coolant into a first end of a first one of the cryo pipes and receives coolant from a first end of at least a second of one of the pipes (para. 0028-0030).
Regarding claims 4-5; Stemmle teaches the second ends of the pipes are connected to a coolant router (lines from pipes to valves and to the coolant container meet the limitation of routers; para. 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 6, Stemmle teaches that a spare coolant line provided between the first cooling system and the second cooling system (any of the coolant lines meets the limitation of a spare coolant line (para. 0028-0030).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmle in view of Mashio (US 2017/0271860).
Stemmle teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the cables are electrically shielded at the ends and the shields are switchably connected to ground at each respective end.
Mashio, however, teaches an electrical device (abstract) wherein power cables have shield layers at the ends of the cable that is grounded at both ends for the purpose of suppressing diffusion of a fault current (para. 0040-0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the power cables of Stemmle have shield layers at the ends of the cable that is grounded at both ends in order to suppress diffusion of a fault current as taught by Mashio.
Additionally, it appears that any configuration meets the limitation of being switchably connected.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmle in view of Mashio (US 2017/0271860) and CN 106537716.
Stemmle teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the cables are electrically shielded at the ends and the shields are switchably connected to ground at each respective end.
Mashio, however, teaches an electrical device (abstract) wherein power cables have shield layers at the ends of the cable that is grounded at both ends for the purpose of suppressing diffusion of a fault current (para. 0040-0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the power cables of Stemmle have shield layers at the ends of the cable that is grounded at both ends in order to suppress diffusion of a fault current as taught by Mashio.
Additionally, it appears that any configuration meets the limitation of being switchably connected.
Claim(s) 8-9, 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmle in view of CN 106537716.
Regarding claim 8, Stemmle teaches identifying an impaired cable (meets limitation of detecting damage to the cable ; para. 0008), and replacing the impaired cable with the alternate superconducting cable (para. 0036).
Stemmle fails to teach operating the interrupting switches at the first and second end of the damaged cable for disconnecting it from the electrical phase.
716, however, teaches a method for operating a superconducting cable system (abstract) wherein power switches (interrupting and connecting) are connected and disconnected as different cable systems are removed and brought on line (para. 0005, 0021-0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein power switches in Stemmle (interrupting and connecting) are connected and disconnected in order to provide for different cable systems removed and brought on line as taught by 716.
Regarding claim 9, Stemmle teaches that the valves are shut off for the impaired cable (para. 0032-0036).
If Stemmle fails to teach interrupting and connecting switches, then 716 will be applied here as described above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmle in view of CN 106537716 and Lee (US 2006/0065004).
Stemmle teaches a method as described above in claim 8, but fails to teach determining properties of a coolant flow out of/into the first cooling system meet or exceed predetermined limit values and if the values are not met, connecting the first cooling system and the coolant router or the first and second cooling system via a spare coolant line.
Lee, however, teaches a refrigeration system for superconducting cables (abstract) wherein a pressure drop from a main coolant system (meets limitation of determining properties of the coolant flow out of the system) triggers backup coolant flows from a backup storage system (para. 0027-0029) for the purpose of providing consistent cooling (para. 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pressure drop from a main coolant system (meets limitation of determining properties of the coolant flow out of the system) in Stemmle triggers backup coolant flows from a backup storage system in order to provide consistent cooling as taught by Lee.
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
Prosecution Insights