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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorris (US 5866515) in view of Manthiram (“Synthesis of the high-Tc superconductor…”).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 8, 12-14; Dorris teaches a superconductive coating (paint) and a process of making the same (abstract) comprising forming a dispersion of a high temperature superconducting powder in a liquid (col. 1, lines 40-55) wherein the powder is YBCO (col. 3, lines 20-30).
Dorris fails to teach that the powder has a morphology as claimed.
Manthiram teaches a YBCO superconducting powder (abstract) wherein the powder has the morphology of agglomerates (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the powder including the morphology of agglomerates in Dorris in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Manthiram.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10, Dorris teaches that the dispersion comprises ethanol (col. 3, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 7, 14, it appears that X is limited to Mg for y greater than 0. However, it appears that the claims do not require X to be present (y can be 0) such that Dorris meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Dorris teaches applying the coating (paint) to a surface(fine silver wire coated with the superconductor dispersion; col. 1, lines 1-10).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketcham (US 5814262) in view of Manthiram (“Synthesis of the high-Tc superconductor…”).
Ketcham teaches a multilayer film (substrate, superconducting layer; col. 4, lines 5-10) wherein the superconducting layer comprises a YBCO HTS powder (Example 18).
Ketcham fails to teach that the powder has a morphology as claimed.
Manthiram teaches a YBCO superconducting powder (abstract) wherein the powder has the morphology of agglomerates (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the powder including the morphology of agglomerates in Ketcham in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Manthiram.
Regarding claim 19, it appears that X is limited to Mg for y greater than 0. However, it appears that the claims do not require X to be present (y can be 0) such that Ketcham meets the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 5202305) in view of Manthiram.
Watanabe teaches a multilayer film (substrate, superconducting layer, inter alia; abstract) wherein the superconducting layer comprises a YBCO HTS powder (col. 2, line 55-col. 3, line 10).
Watanabe fails to teach that the powder has a morphology as claimed.
Manthiram teaches a YBCO superconducting powder (abstract) wherein the powder has the morphology of agglomerates (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the powder including the morphology of agglomerates in Watanabe in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Manthiram.
Regarding claim 19, it appears that X is limited to Mg for y greater than 0. However, it appears that the claims do not require X to be present (y can be 0) such that Watanabe meets the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 5202305) in view of Manthiram and Harshavardhan (US 5420102).
Watanabe teaches a product as described above in claim 16. Watanabe teaches a primer layer (substrate), first insulator layer (intermediate layer), superconductor layer, and a barrier layer (protective layer) (abstract).
Watanabe fails to teach a second insulating layer.
Harshavardhan, however, teaches a superconducting film (abstract) comprising at least two buffer films for the purpose of reducing dielectric and conducting losses (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least two buffer films in Watanabe in order to reduce dielectric and conducting losses as taught by Harshavardhan.
It appears that the second buffer layer as taught by Harshavardhan meets the limitation of a second insulating layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 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 art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitations of these claims in combination with claims 1 and 8, respectively.
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