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 § 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) 1- 5 , 7 , 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (US 2017/0221609) in view of Sato (US 2015/0174678) . Kurihara teaches a method of making a coil for a superconducting magnet (para. 0004, 0034) comprising providing a REBCO superconducting tape (para. 0048), plating the YBCO with a tin-lead solder layer (para. 0068-0070), and co - winding the coated superconductor with a stainless steel tape ( para. 0112-0115). Regarding the limitation of oxidizing the stainless tape, it appears that any implementation of providing the stainless steel tape would result in some amount of oxidation such that the limitation of the claim is met. Kurihara fails to teach that the plating method comprises dipping the REBCO tape in a solder bath to form a layer. Sato, however, teaches a method of forming a plating layer of solder (abstract) comprising running a tape through a solder bath to form a layer of solder on the tape (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide forming a plating layer of solder (abstract) in Kurihara comprising running a tape through a solder bath to form a layer of solder on the tape in order to provide a method parameter known in the art as taught by Sato. Regarding claim 2, Kurihara teach that the coil is no-insulation ( para. 0112-0115 ). Regarding claim 3-5, 7, Kurihara teaches that the solder layer is 2 micrometers (para. 0069). Additionally, Sato teaches that the speed of the reel is 1-3 m/min in a process to provide thickness of a few micrometers (up to 2 ) (para. 0142). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide coating speed of 1-3 m/min in a process to provide a layer of around 2 micrometers thickness in Kurihara in order to provide a process parameter well known in the art as taught by Sato. Regarding claim 4, it appears that the prior art meets the limitation of the degradation being negligible as that limitation is broad such that the teaching of the prior art having a substantially similar solder and stabilizer material as the claimed invention. Regarding claim 5, Sato teaches trimming excess molten solder (abstract). It would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill to use a silicone wipe. Claim (s) 6 , 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (US 2017/0221609) in view of Sato (US 2015/0174678) and Li (“Feasibility study of the impregnation…”) . Kurihara teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach that the solder is 63Sn/37Pb. Li, however, teaches a method for impregnating HTS tapes with solder (abstract) wherein the solder is 63Sn/37Pb (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the solder of Kurihara as 63Sn/37Pb in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Li. Regarding claim 8, Sato teaches that the molten bath is kept at a temperature above the melting point of the solder (abstract). The melting temperature of 63Sn/37Pb is 183 C. therefore, it would have been obvious to make the temperature of the bath above 183 C such that the range of temperatures above 183 C overlap with the claimed range. Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (US 2017/0221609) in view of Sato (US 2015/0174678) and Cubilos Gonzalez (US 2020/0392616) . Kurihara teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the steel is 316L steel. Gonzalez, however, teaches a method of making a film (abstract) comprising 316L steel for the purpose of providing corrosion resistance (para. 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 316L steel in Kurihara in order to provide corrosion resistance as taught by Gonzalez. Claim (s) 10-17 , 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (US 2017/0221609) in view of Sato (US 2015/0174678) and Schuisky (US 2005/0265885) and Lu (US 2019/0267172) . Kurihara teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach oxidizing the stainless steel with heating in a furnace. Regarding claims 10-15, 20; Schuisky, however, teaches a stainless steel (abstract) wherein the stainless steel is oxidized by heating in a furnace in order to provide corrosion resistance to the stainless steel and contact resistance of less than 50 m - omega -cm2 ( para. 0013-0016). Lu teaches that the contact resistance between turns in a superconducting coil is about 1-100 m-omega-cm2 (para. 0027 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the stainless steel is oxidized by heating in a furnace in order to provide corrosion resistance to the stainless steel and contact resistance of less than 50 m-omega-cm2 as taught by Schuisky and because Lu teaches that the contact resistance between turns in a superconducting coil is about 1-100 m-omega -cm2. Regarding claim 11- 12, Schuisky teaches heating the stainless steel in the furnace at a temperature of 850 C (para. 0015). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature and oxidation time (speed of the reel to reel) to control the contact resistance as taught by Lu (para. 0077-0078) based on the desired properties of the end product absent a showing of unexpected results. Regarding claims 16-17, 20; Schuisky teaches that the contact resistance is resilient to temperature cycling such that the limitations of 16-17 , 20 appear to be met (claim 19). Claim (s) 12, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (US 2017/0221609) in view of Sato (US 2015/0174678) and Schuisky (US 2005/0265885) and Lu (US 2019/0267172) and Kim (US 2021/0036335) and Li (“Feasibility study of the impregnation…”) . Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches it is known to oxidize stainless steel in a furnace at temperatures of 150-900 C for the purpose providing a iron oxide film on the surface of the steel (para. 0056). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide oxidize stainless steel in a furnace at temperatures of 150-900 C in Kurihara in order to provide a iron oxide film on the surface of the steel as taught by Kim. Regarding the properties of claim 16-17 and 20 of the cycle resistance, as the prior art of record teaches a substantially similar steel (Li) and substantially similar method of oxidizing the stainless steel (Kim, Schuisky), it appears that the properties of the combined prior art would be substantially similar to those of the claimed invention, including the cycle resiliency claimed. Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (US 2017/0221609) in view of Sato (US 2015/0174678) and Cubilos Gonzalez (US 2020/0392616) and Li (“Feasibility study of the impregnation…”) . Kurihara teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the steel is 316L steel. Gonzalez, however, teaches a method of making a film (abstract) comprising 316L steel for the purpose of providing corrosion resistance (para. 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 316L steel in Kurihara in order to provide corrosion resistance as taught by Gonzalez. Kurihara teaches a method as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach that the solder is 63Sn/37Pb. Li, however, teaches a method for impregnating HTS tapes with solder (abstract) wherein the solder is 63Sn/37Pb (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the solder of Kurihara as 63Sn/37Pb in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Li. Additionally, Kurihara teaches that the solder layer is 2 micrometers (para. 0069). 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