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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending. Claim 9 was canceled per Applicant after acknowledgment by Examiner of omission during claim numbering within Non-Final Rejection filed 10/01/2025 . Claims 1-8 and 10-20 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 02/27/2026. Claim 21 is newly rejected. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 7, 12, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenther et al. (DE 102016225456 B3).
Regarding claim 1: Guenther discloses a superconductor levitation (superlev) vehicle system comprising: a conduit (area under 3; Fig.1), beneath a guideway (3; Fig.1) for a vehicle (4; Fig.1) comprising a magnetic flux source that generates a magnetic flux (23; Fig.1), extending longitudinally along a length of the guideway ( Fig.1); a cryogenic fluid within the conduit (cryostat 16,17; Fig.1); and a superconductor (1,15; Fig.1), immersed in the cryogenic fluid (1,15 within cryostat 16,17; Fig.1) and extending longitudinally along the length of the guideway (12; Fig.1 and see attached EPO translation; Para.[0045]), configured to conduct an electrical current (1,15; Fig.1), repel a magnetic field generated by the magnetic flux source of the vehicle, and levitate the vehicle a distance from the guideway by flux pinning the magnetic flux generated by the magnetic flux source of the vehicle (Para.[0046]).
Regarding claim 7: Guenther discloses a superconductor levitation (superlev) vehicle and fluid transportation system comprising: a guideway (3; Fig.1) for a vehicle (4; Fig.10 comprising a magnetic flux source that generates a magnetic flux (23; Fig.1); a conduit (area below 3; Fig.1), beneath the guideway and extending longitudinally along a length of the guideway (Fig.1); a cryogenic fluid within the conduit (cryostat 16,17; Fig.1); and a superconductor (1,15; Fig.1), immersed in the cryogenic fluid (1,15 within cryostat 16,17; Fig.1) and extending longitudinally along the length of the guideway (12; Fig.1 and Para.[0045]), configured to conduct an electrical current (superconductor, 1,15; Fig.1), repel a magnetic field generated by the magnetic flux source of the vehicle, and levitate the vehicle a distance from the guideway by flux pinning the magnetic flux generated by the magnetic flux source of the vehicle (Para.[0046]).
Regarding claim 12: Guenther further discloses a system of claim 7, wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a coolant, coupled to the superconductor, configured to cool the superconductor (1,15 within cryostat 16,17; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 16: Guenther discloses a method of vehicle transport and energy storage and transmission, the method comprising: providing a conduit (area below 3; Fig.1) below a guideway (3; Fig.3) for a vehicle (4; Fig.1) comprising a magnetic flux source that generates a magnetic flux (23; Fig.1), the conduit extending longitudinally along a length of the guideway (Fig.1) and comprising a superconductor (1,15; Fig.1) that extends longitudinally along the length of the guideway (12; Fig.1); immersing the superconductor in cryogenic fluid by filling the conduit with the cryogenic fluid (1,15 within cryostat 16,17; Fig.1); cooling the superconductor using the cryogenic fluid (Fig.1); conducting an electrical current via the superconductor (superconductors, 1,15; Fig.1); repelling a magnetic field generated by the magnetic flux source of the vehicle; and levitating the vehicle a distance from the guideway by flux pinning the magnet flux generated by the magnetic flux source of the vehicle (Para.[0046]).
Regarding claim 21: Guenther further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the magnetic flux source is a permanent magnet array or an energized coil (23; Fig.1 and Para.[0018], lines 1-2).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther in view of Womack, Jr. et al. (US 4845308 A).
Regarding claim 2: Guenther does not teach wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a liquid selected from the group consisting of hydrogen nitrogen, and methane.
However, Womack teaches wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises nitrogen (42; Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the fluid selection of Womack since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Guenter teaches a superconductor (1,15; Fig.1) for use along a guideway (3; Fig.1). Guenther does not teach wherein the superconductor transmits electrical power along the guideway.
However, Womack teaches wherein the superconductor transmits electrical power along the guideway. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the electrical power transmission of Womack to provide an efficient means for power transmission from different locations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6: Guenther does not teach wherein the conduit further comprises: a fluid transportation system for transporting and storing fluids along the conduit.
However, Womack teaches a fluid transportation system for transporting and storing fluids along the conduit (Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the fluid transportation system of Womack to provide an efficient means for fluid transportation from different locations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14: Guenther does not teach wherein the superconductor is configured to transmit and store electrical power.
However, Womack teaches wherein the superconductor is configured to transmit and store electrical power (Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the power transmission system of Womack to provide an efficient means for transmission from different locations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17: Guenther does not teach transporting and storing electrical power using the superconductor.
However, Womack teaches transporting and storing electrical power using the superconductor (Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Guenther with the electrical power transmission of Womack to provide an efficient means for power transmission from different locations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18: Guenther does not teach transporting and storing the cryogenic fluid using the conduit.
However, Womack teaches transporting and storing the cryogenic fluid using the conduit (Fig.6 and 24; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Guenther with the fluid transportation system of Womack to provide an efficient means for fluid transportation from different locations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3, 8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther in view of Kuznetsov (US 5666883 A).
Regarding claim 3: Guenther does not teach wherein the superconductor is a superconducting cable.
However, Kuznetsov teaches the use of a superconducting cable (Col.12, line 66-Col.13, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the superconducting cable of Kuznetsov to provide efficient power transmission with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Guenther does not teach wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a liquid fuel.
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a liquid fuel (Col.14, lines 6-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the fluid selection of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Guenther does not teach wherein the liquid fuel comprises hydrogen, methane, gasoline, or diesel.
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein the liquid fuel comprises hydrogen (Col.14, lines 6-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the fluid selection of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11: Guenther does not teach wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a gas
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a gas (Col.7, lines 19-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the fluid selection of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Guenther does not teach wherein the coolant comprises a liquid comprising hydrogen, nitrogen, or methane.
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein the coolant comprises a liquid comprising hydrogen (Col.14, lines 6-8) or nitrogen (Col.9, lines 40-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the fluid selection of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther in view of Womack and Kuznetsov.
Regarding claim 5: Guenther does not teach an electrical power delivery system electrically coupled to the superconductor.
However, Kuznetsov teaches an electrical power delivery system (4; Fig.2) electrically coupled to the superconductor (2; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the electrical power delivery of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15: Guenther does not teach an electrical power delivery system electrically coupled to the superconductor.
However, Kuznetsov teaches an electrical power delivery system (4; Fig.2) electrically coupled to the superconductor (2: Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guenther with the electrical power delivery of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19: Guenther does not teach wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a liquid fuel.
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises a liquid fuel (Col.14, lines 6-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Guenther with the fluid selection of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20: Guenther does not teach wherein the liquid fuel comprises hydrogen, methane, gasoline, or diesel.
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein the liquid fuel comprises hydrogen (Col.14, lines 6-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Guenther with the fluid selection of Kuznetsov since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Kuznetsov does not teach or suggest features recited in the claims, see updated rejections above necessitated by amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights