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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 and 17-22 set forth in the amendment submitted 12/30/2025 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the Specification (Abstract), set forth to the Non-Final Office action mailed on 10/01/2025 has been withdrawn because of the amendment filed on 12/30/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 10-13, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Takahata in the US Patent Number US 5111140 A, the rejection of Claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Otaka et al. (Hereinafter, “Otaka”) in the US Patent Number US 5059903 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 8, 14-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Probir K. Ghoshal et al. (Hereinafter, “Probir”) in the NPL- Experimental Set Up to Measure AC Losses of HTS in Rotating Magnetic Field- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, JUNE 2007 (Pages 3199-3202) have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 11-12, of the remarks, filed on 12/30/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Takahata in the US Patent Number US 5111140 A, the rejection of Claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Otaka et al. (Hereinafter, “Otaka”) in the US Patent Number US 5059903 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 8, 14-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Probir K. Ghoshal et al. (Hereinafter, “Probir”) in the NPL- Experimental Set Up to Measure AC Losses of HTS in Rotating Magnetic Field- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, JUNE 2007 (Pages 3199-3202), that “the cited section of the applied reference, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least "a frame (110) configured to support the sample holder (114), wherein the frame (110) includes a pair of spaced apart parallel walls (122), and wherein the frame (110) is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (138), wherein a distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined," and "a sensor device (112) configured to detect a force exerted on the sensor device (112) by the extension arm (146), wherein the AC losses are based on the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation and the force detected by the sensor device," as recited in claim 1, as amended. Therefore, independent claim 1, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied reference.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over TAKAHATA. Therefore, independent claim 1, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over TAKAHATA.
…………….
For at least the reasons presented in the interview and without acquiescing in the Examiner's rejection, the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least "providing the superconductor sample (116) in (Remarks-Page 11) sample holder (114), wherein the sample holder (114) is coupled to a movable support assembly, wherein the moveable support assembly includes a frame (110) configured to support the sample holder, wherein the frame (110) includes a pair of spaced apart parallel walls (122), and wherein the frame (110) is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (138), wherein a distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined," and "determining the AC losses for the superconductor sample (116) based on the measured force, wherein the AC losses are based on the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation and the force detected by the sensor device," as recited in claim 17, as amended. Although potentially of different scope than claim 17, independent claims 1 and 21, as amended, recite similar features. Therefore, independent claims 1, 17, and 21, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied references.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that amended claim 17 is patentable over TAKAHATA and GHOSHAL.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 8, 14, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on TAKAHATA and GHOSHAL (Remarks-Page 12)”.
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 11-12, of the remarks, filed on 12/30/2025, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Takahata in the US Patent Number US 5111140 A, the rejection of Claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Otaka et al. (Hereinafter, “Otaka”) in the US Patent Number US 5059903 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 8, 14-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Probir K. Ghoshal et al. (Hereinafter, “Probir”) in the NPL- Experimental Set Up to Measure AC Losses of HTS in Rotating Magnetic Field- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, JUNE 2007 (Pages 3199-3202), as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 10/01/2025 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Because applicant has amended the claims and added the limitation in claim 1, “wherein a distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined; a rotor positioned between the pair of spaced apart parallel walls of the frame, wherein the rotor is configured to rotate about the axis of rotation to generate a magnetic field; an extension arm coupled to the frame; and a sensor device configured to detect a force exerted on the sensor device by the extension arm, wherein the AC losses are based on the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation and the force detected by the sensor device.” and similar amendment for independent claims 17 and 21, which overcomes the present rejection of claims 1, 17 and 21. Because claim now recites to determine the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation which was not recited in the claim. Reference Takahata does not disclose to determine the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation. Therefore present amendment overcomes the rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Takahata in the US Patent Number US 5111140 A, the rejection of Claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Otaka et al. (Hereinafter, “Otaka”) in the US Patent Number US 5059903 A and the rejection of Claim(s) 8, 14-15 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata ‘140 A in view of Probir K. Ghoshal et al. (Hereinafter, “Probir”) in the NPL- Experimental Set Up to Measure AC Losses of HTS in Rotating Magnetic Field- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, VOL. 17, NO. 2, JUNE 2007 (Pages 3199-3202), as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 10/01/2025, as set forth below. Applicant’s argument is therefore moot.
However, the limitation, “distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined” is not clear. It is not clear how the distance is measures and how the AC loss is calculated from the distance and force. Therefore Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined.” The meaning of the language “a distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined” is unclear. It is not clear how the distance is measured and what element or apparatus is used to measure the distance. Is there any algorithm or any device is required to determine the distance? Claim recites, “wherein the AC losses are based on the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation and the force detected by the sensor device”. However, it is not clear how the distance and force is determined and from distance and force how the AC losses are determined. Claim does not recite any relationship between the distance and force and claim also does not recite how the force and distance is determined. It is not clear if there is any formula, algorithm or any structure is used to determine the AC losses for distance and force. It is there any mathematical relationship and which structure is used to determine the AC losses. Therefore, the claim language is not clear.
Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of its dependence from claim 1.
Independent Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, because of the same reason as stated above.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of its dependence from claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BAHR (US 20120275486 A1) discloses, “DILATOMETER FOR MEASURING METALLIC SAMPLES- [0002] The present disclosure relates to a dilatometer for measuring metallic samples. [0019] A dilatometer 1 comprises a sample chamber 2 within a housing, wherein a metallic sample 3 is clamped in a sample holder that is formed by a first clamping pin 4 and a second clamping pin 14. The sample 3 can be a cylindrical rod, tube, square, polygon or other geometric shape. Hereinafter, the phrase "longitudinal direction" is understood to be the direction that extends along the longitudinal axis of the clamping pins 4 and 14. [0020] The sample chamber 2 may include an inert gas and/or vacuum, may be thermally insulated, and may have other functionalities that are not further described here. [0021] For measuring a length change of the sample 3, an optical measuring device is provided with a transmitter 6 and a receiver 9. The transmitter 6 comprises a light source, for example a high-power GaN LED, which emits light having a constant wavelength that is then directed at the sample 3 by an optical system having, for example, a collimator and a diffuser. In this manner, the transmitter 6 emits a band-shaped beam path 7 that is incident on the sample 3 in a central region of the sample 3, in a range between about 30% and 70% of the total length of the sample 3. [0023] Arranged around the sample 3 in the sample chamber 2, there is an induction coil 5 that extends in the longitudinal direction beyond the sample 3. Via the induction coil 5, the sample 3 can, in accordance with the present disclosure be heated up at high speed, for example at over 1,000 K/s-However BAHR does not disclose wherein a distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation is determined; a rotor positioned between the pair of spaced apart parallel walls of the frame, wherein the rotor is configured to rotate about the axis of rotation to generate a magnetic field; an extension arm coupled to the frame; and a sensor device configured to detect a force exerted on the sensor device by the extension arm, wherein the AC losses are based on the distance from the superconductor sample to the axis of the rotation and the force detected by the sensor device.”
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 NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights