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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the thickness range of the 10-25 microns for the substrate is significant in that it allows for good tolerance to bending strain that can occur when wrapping tape strands around a wire former when forming a superconductor wire.
However, the specification (and it does not appear any other results) demonstrate that the properties would not be substantially similar at 30 microns. Additionally, as the superconductor wire of the prior art is substantially similar to that of the invention (See page 20, [00103-00105] of the specification), including strand layers, and HTS thickness (Lee; col. 4, lines 60-65; 2-10 microns) (as taught by Wang and Lee) and GdBCO composition (as taught by Majkic), it appears that the prior art teaches an engineering current density overlapping with that of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18 absent a showing to the contrary. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3,5-8, 10, 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of the wire former in claims 1, 7 and 15 do not appear to be related to the overall structure of the superconductor wire. Please recite a relationship to the superconductor wire as exemplified by specification at [0043]. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (“A viable dipole magnet concept with RECO CORC wires and further development…”) in view of Majkic (US 2019/0198745) and Lee (US 7774035) and Kar (“Next-generation highly flexible round REBCO STAR wires with over 580 A mm-2…”).
Regarding claims 1-3; Wang teaches a superconductor wire (abstract) comprising a first superconductor tape strand and a second superconductor tape strand (multiple layers of REBCO tape, page 2-3), each tape strand includes a substrate and superconductor film (page 2-3), wherein the conductor has a conductor diameter of 3.70 mm (abstract) and the superconductor exhibits an engineering density of 540 A mm-2 at 21 T and 4.2 K (abstract).
Wang fails to teach that the strand includes a buffer stack, metal layer, and a stabilizer layer.
Lee, however, teaches a superconducting tape (abstract) wherein the tape has a buffer layer stack (col. 3, lines 58-65), and a metal layer (silver capping layer; col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 19), and a stabilizer layer overlying the metal layer (col. 9, lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide buffer layer stack, and a metal layer, and a stabilizer layer overlying the metal layer in Wang in order to provide a superconductor tape configuration known in the art as taught by Lee.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10; Wang teaches that the wire has an engineering current density of 540 A mm-2 at 21 T and 4.2 K, Wang fails to teach the current density of at least 600 A/mm-2 at 20 T and 4.2 K.
Majkic, however, teaches a GdBCO superconductor tape (para. 0050) wherein the superconductor is doped with Zr doping such that (Ba + Zr)/Cu is greater than 0.72 for the purpose of providing greater critical current (para. 0061-0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconductor of Wang doped with Zr doping such that (Ba + Zr)/Cu is greater than 0.72 in order to provide greater critical current as taught by Majkic.
Additionally, as the superconductor wire of the prior art is substantially similar to that of the invention (See page 20, [00103-00105] of the specification), including strand layers, and HTS thickness (Lee; col. 4, lines 60-65; 2-10 microns) (as taught by Wang and Lee) and GdBCO composition (as taught by Majkic), it appears that the prior art teaches an engineering current density/critical current overlapping with that of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18 absent a showing to the contrary. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 1, 7, 15, Wang teaches that the substrate is 30 microns (Table 1). This value appears to be close enough to 25 microns such that one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve expected the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the thickness of the stabilizer along a superconductor side of the tape (strand) is 40-50 microns (col. 9, lines 30-36).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 15; Wang teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach a wire former having a diameter in a range from 0.5-1.1 mm.
Kar, however, teaches a REBCO wire (abstract) wherein the former has a diameter of 0.81 or 0.51 mm (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the wire former of Wang having a diameter of 0.81 or 0.51 mm in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Kar.
Regarding claim 7, as the superconductor wire of the prior art is substantially similar to that of the invention (See page 20, [00103-00105] of the specification), including strand layers including HTS thickness (Lee; col. 4, lines 60-65; 2-10 microns) (as taught by Wang, Lee, and Kar) and GdBCO composition (as taught by Majkic), it appears that the prior art teaches an engineering current density overlapping with that of claims 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18 absent a showing to the contrary. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding claim 8, Kar teaches that the retention of the wire is 86% at 15 mm bend radius at 77K (Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches that the substrate is 30 microns (Table 1). This value appears to be close enough to 25 microns such that one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve expected the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10; Majkic teaches a GdBCO superconductor tape (para. 0050) wherein the superconductor is doped with Zr doping such that (Ba + Zr)/Cu is greater than 0.72 for the purpose of providing greater critical current (para. 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches cables comprising the superconductor wires (page 6-7).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches that the conductor diameter is 3.09 mm (Table 1). This appears to be so close to 3 mm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that the thickness of the stabilizer along a superconductor side of the tape (strand) is 40-50 microns (col. 9, lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 1, if the properties of claim 1 are additionally reliant upon the wire former diameter, this rejection will be applied herein.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (“A viable dipole magnet concept with RECO CORC wires and further development…”) in view of Majkic (US 2019/0198745) and Lee (US 7774035) and Kar (“Next-generation highly flexible round REBCO STAR wires with over 580 A mm-2…”) and DE 3853914.
Wang teaches a product as described above in claim 13, but fails to teach that the cable has a diameter from 3-18 mm.
914, however, teaches a superconductor cable made of superconductor wires (abstract, para. 0048) wherein the diameter of the cable is 7 mm (para. 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconductor cable of Wang having a diameter of 7 mm in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by 914.
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 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
