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 § 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) 1-3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Lebby (US 2018/0013053).
Regarding claims 1-3; Lebby teaches a joined body (two YBCO films joined together; abstract) comprising a first superconductor layer (fig. 2, #220; para. 0032), a barrier layer arranged on the first layer (fig. 2, #210; para. 0032), and a second superconducting layer arranged on the barrier layer (fig. 2, #220 (top); para. 0032), the first, second, and barrier layer formed of RECO (para. 0020-0023), a leak current from the first and second layer blocked by the barrier layer (PBCO substantially similar to the barrier layer of the invention would necessarily block leak current; para. 0023).
Regarding claim 8, Lebby teaches that the substrate is STO (para. 0024).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Jin (US 2017/0011823).
Jin teaches a method for producing a joined body (abstract) comprising forming a first layer on a first substrate (para. 0008, 0031), forming a second superconducting layer on a second substrate (para. 0008, 0031), forming a fine crystal layer on any one of the first and second superconducting layer (polycrystalline bulk body; para. 0008, 0021), heating the first and second substrate in a state where the fine crystal is sandwiched between the first and second superconductor layer (para. 0016; fig. 4(g); para. 0060), the first second superconducting layer are formed from REBCO (para. 0031), the fine crystal layer is formed of polycrystal REBCO (para. 0008).
Regarding claim 12, Jin teaches that during the heating the fine crystal layer forms a liquid phase (para. 0045).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby.
Lebby teaches a product as described above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Lebby teaches that the barrier layer is epitaxially formed (para. 0032). While Lebby does not specifically teach the barrier layer is epitaxially grown from the first and the second layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide growing a barrier layer from both the first and second superconducting as Lebby teaches the barrier is epitaxially grown from the superconductor layer and both the first and second superconductor layer are similar.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby in view of JP 2012-230868.
Lebby teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach that the substrate is metal and the intermediate layer is disposed on the metal substrate and the first superconducting layer is disposed on the intermediate layer.
868, however, teaches a superconductor film (claim 1) comprising a metal substrate and an intermediate layer of STO (para. 0013, 0030) prior to depositing YBCO film (para. 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a metal substrate and an intermediate layer of STO as the underlayer in Lebby in order to provide a configuration known in the art prior to depositing YBCO film as taught by 868.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby in view of Matsumoto (US 2006/0258539).
Lebby teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach that the c-axis direction of the REBCO first layer is along a direction of a main surface of the substrate on a side of the first superconducting layer or along a direction of a normal line of the main surface.
Matsumoto, however, teaches a superconducting film (abstract) wherein the YBCO is deposited in a c-axis oriented state comprises the c-axis parallel (along) to the normal line of the substrate surface (para. 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the YBCO of Lebby deposited in a c-axis oriented state comprises the c-axis parallel (along) to the normal line of the substrate surface in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Matsumoto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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 c-axis of the first and second barrier layer have the same c-axis orientation and different a-axis orientation.
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