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, 8-9, 11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 2016/0216348) in view of Kramer (US 2008/0108505) and Ekboe (US 2010/0009855).
Roth, however, teaches a superconductor HTS wire (abstract; para. 0006-0007, 0048) wherein two wires are provided in a face to back orientation (para. 0152-0153).
Roth fails to teach the claimed contact resistivity.
Kramer teaches a superconductor stack comprising a first superconductor tape wherein the superconductor tape stack has a contact resistivity of at most 10-3 Ω-cm2 (para. 0010). The range overlaps with the claimed range. 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).
Additionally, Ekbote teaches that a superconductor for use in an NMR comprises low resistivity (para. 0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a contact resistivity overlapping with the claimed range in Roth in order to provide low resistivity in a NMR as taught by Kramer and Ekbote, respectively.
Regarding claim 2-3, Kramer teaches that wires have substrates made of nickel (para. 0021).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kramer teaches that the buffer is SRO (claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, Roth teaches that the conductive material disposed between the first and second tape is a silver alloy silver which necessarily exhibits a resistivity overlapping with the claimed range (para. 0098, 0152-0153). 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 claims 9, Roth teaches that the wires are used in NMR coils (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Kramer teaches that the substrate comprises nickel (para. 0021) which necessarily exhibits a resistivity overlapping with the claimed range. 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). Additionally, Roth teaches that the superconductors are adjacent to the substrate (fig. 15c; para. 0152-0153).
Regarding claims 14-16, Kramer teaches that the buffer layer is SRO (para. 0033-0035).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 2016/0216348) in view of Kramer (US 2008/0108505) and Ekboe (US 2010/0009855) and Yamano (US 2019/0379145).
Regarding claims 6 and 17; Roth teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach a slot extending through the REBCO film and buffer layer stack and filling the slot with a conductive material having a resistivity less than 1 m ohm*cm.
Yamano, however, teaches connection for a superconductor (abstract) wherein slots extend through the REBCO and buffer layers (para. 0073, 0074; fig. 3B, #31) wherein the slots are filled with low melt solder (para. 0077) for the purpose of providing structural strength in coiled applications (para. 0008-0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide slots extend through the REBCO and buffer layers wherein the slots are filled with low melt solder in order to provide structural strength in coiled applications as taught by Yamano.
Additionally, Roth teaches that the solder for the connection is silver solder (para. 0085). It would have been obvious to use this solder for filling the slots in order to provide a known solder as taught by Roth. Additionally, the resistivity of the silver solder would necessarily overlap with the claimed range. 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).
Additionally, it appears that the critical current of the prior art is substantially similar/overlaps with the claimed range as the substrate, buffer, superconductor, resistivity of the prior art (as discussed above) is substantially similar to that claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Yamano teaches that the superconductor wires can be constructed into superconductor cables (para. 0009).
Regarding claim 17, it appears that the prior art of record teaches a substantially similar product as that claimed such that a critical current overlapping with the claimed range would naturally flow from the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Yamano teaches that the shape of the slots is not limited (para. 0150). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a slot with a size overlapping with the claimed range absent a showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A).
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 2016/0216348) in view of Kramer (US 2008/0108505) and Ekboe (US 2010/0009855) and Kodenkandath (US 2007/0111893).
Roth teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the superconductor tapes comprise a superconductor film on both sides of the substrate.
Kodenkandath, however, teaches a superconductor coil (abstract) wherein the superconductor wire comprises a superconductor layer on both sides of the substrate for the purpose of providing enhanced critical current (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide superconductor wire comprises a superconductor layer on both sides of the substrate for in order to provide enhanced critical current as taught by Kodenkandath.
Additionally, Roth teaches that there is overlap of at least 95% of the end band tapes (para. 0035).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 2016/0216348) in view of Kramer (US 2008/0108505) and Ekboe (US 2010/0009855) and Honda (US 2018/0301248).
Roth teaches a product as described above in 1, but fails to teach that the substrate of the first and second superconductor tape has a yield strength of at least 300 MPa.
Honda, however, teaches a superconductor article (abstract) wherein the substrate comprises an alloy of copper and tungsten (para. 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alloy of copper and tungsten in Roth in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Honda.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide an alloy such that copper and tungsten are provided in equal amounts absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, it appears that the substrate of Honda would necessarily have a yield strength overlapping that recited in claim 12.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Kodenkandath (US 2007/0111893).
Roth teaches a superconductor HTS wire (abstract; para. 0006-0007, 0048) wherein two wires are provided in a face to back orientation (para. 0152-0153) where there is overlap of at least 95% of the end band tapes (para. 0035).
Roth fails to teach the superconductor tapes comprise a superconductor film on both sides of the substrate.
Kodenkandath, however, teaches a superconductor coil (abstract) wherein the superconductor wire comprises a superconductor layer on both sides of the substrate for the purpose of providing enhanced critical current (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide superconductor wire comprises a superconductor layer on both sides of the substrate for in order to provide enhanced critical current as taught by Kodenkandath.
Additionally, Roth teaches that there is overlap of at least 95% of the end band tapes (para. 0035).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Kodenkandath and Kramer (US 2008/0108505) and Ekboe (US 2010/0009855).
Roth teaches the product of claim 19, but fails to teach the claimed contact resistivity.
Kramer teaches a superconductor stack comprising a first superconductor tape wherein the superconductor tape stack has a contact resistivity of at most 10-3 Ω-cm2 (para. 0010). The range overlaps with the claimed range. 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).
Additionally, Ekbote teaches that a superconductor for use in an NMR comprises low resistivity (para. 0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a contact resistivity overlapping with the claimed range in Roth in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Kramer and Ekbote, 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
Prosecution Insights