–DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 12-13 were rejected as being obvious over Yannick in view of Dakhil. Claim 3 was rejected as being obvious over Yannick in view of Dakhil and Kubota. Claim 8 was rejected as being obvious over Yannick in view of Dakhil and Chu. Claims 14-15 were rejected as being obvious over Yannick in view of Dickinson. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 14 and canceled claims 4-5 and 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed 2/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0087179 to Travers.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first pair of permanent magnets having opposing poles placed on either side of the superconductor” of claim 1 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim (does not appear in drawings according to page 19 lines 28-30). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent No. 2986119 to Yannick (cited by Applicant on 11/2/2023) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0214795 to Dakhil, U.S. Patent No. 5,159,219 to Chu et al. (hereinafter Chu), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0087179 to Travers, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0180283 to Dickinson.
Regarding claim 1, Yannick teaches a superconductor-based engine (Paragraph [0002]) comprising:
a temperature-controlled superconductor (FIG. 1, 5) configured to achieve a superconducting state when cooled to very cold temperatures (Paragraph [0012]) by a chilling fluid (FIG. 1, 1);
a chamber (FIG. 1, 10) housing the superconductor;
an intake port (FIG. 1, 7) for introducing a chilling fluid (FIG. 1, 1) into said chamber to reduce the temperature of the superconductor;
at least one second pair of magnets (FIG. 1; 3, 4) positioned in proximity to the superconductor;
at least one pair of energy storage elements attached to the magnets (Paragraph [0004]).
Yannick does not teach a first pair of permanent magnets having opposing poles placed on either side of the superconductor to provide a stable magnetic field, at least one pair of mechanical energy storage elements attached to the second pair of magnets, wherein the storage elements exert an opposing force approximately proportional to their change in length; and an electronic control unit configured to regulate the introduction of the chilling fluid into the chamber based on feedback from at least one sensor monitoring the engine’s performance, to alternately transition the superconductor between the superconducting state and a non-superconducting state, thereby maintaining a continuous oscillatory motion of the second pair of magnets.
However, Dakhil teaches a magnetic generator (FIG. 5, 200) with two repelling magnets (FIG. 5; 81, 82; Paragraph [0045]) separated by a superconducting material (FIG. 5, 206) with mechanical energy storage elements (FIG. 1, 13) exerting an opposing force approximately proportional to their change in length (Paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick with the springs of Dakhil to store excess power for later use and possible rebooting (Paragraph [0025]).
Yannick in view of Dakhil does not teach a first pair of permanent magnets having opposing poles placed on either side of the superconductor to provide a stable magnetic field, and an electronic control unit configured to regulate the introduction of the chilling fluid into the chamber based on feedback from at least one sensor monitoring the engine’s performance, to alternately transition the superconductor between the superconducting state and a non-superconducting state, thereby maintaining a continuous oscillatory motion of the second pair of magnets.
However, Chu teaches a superconductor (FIG. 2, 222) placed between a pair of permanent magnets with opposing poles (FIG. 2; 208, 217).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick in view of Dakhil with the opposing poled permanent magnets of Chu as this results in a more stable magnetic configuration (Column 9 lines 21-45).
Yannick in view of Dakhil and Chu does not teach an electronic control unit configured to regulate the introduction of the chilling fluid into the chamber based on feedback from at least one sensor monitoring the engine’s performance, to alternately transition the superconductor between the superconducting state and a non-superconducting state, thereby maintaining a continuous oscillatory motion of the second pair of magnets.
However, Travers teaches a chilling fluid (FIG. 2a, 118) introduced to a superconductor (FIG. 2a, 100) to alternately transition the superconductor between the superconducting state and a non-superconducting state, thereby maintaining a continuous oscillatory motion (Paragraph [0031]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick in view of Dakhil and Chu with the chilling fluid oscillation of Travers to provide a more streamlined energy generation scheme for the superconductor-based engine.
Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, and Travers does not teach an electronic control unit configured to regulate introduction of the chilling fluid into the chamber based on feedback from at least one sensor monitoring the engine’s performance.
However, Dickinson teaches a superconducting generator with a chilling fluid (FIG. 1, 14) and a sensor (FIG. 1, 40) introducing the fluid based on feedback monitoring the engine’s performance (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, and Travers with the sensors of Dickinson ensure proper feedback-based electronic operation of the engine.
Regarding claim 2, Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson teaches the superconductor-based engine of claim 1, wherein Yannick further teaches the engine being in the form of a linear electric generator (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson teaches the superconductor-based engine of claim 1, wherein Dakhil further teaches the mechanical storage elements being springs (FIG. 1, 13).
Regarding claim 7, Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson teaches the superconductor-based engine of claim 1, wherein Yannick further teaches the chilling fluid being nitrogen (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson teaches the superconductor-based engine of claim 1, wherein Yannick further teaches the motion of the magnets being achieved and maintained through a combination of the superconductor’s transition between superconducting and non-superconducting states, and the mechanical energy storage elements (Paragraph [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 13, Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson teaches the superconductor-based engine of claim 1, wherein Yannick further teaches the engine being configured to operate in cycles of cooling and warming of the superconductor to achieve repeated mechanical motion (Paragraph [0004]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson and in further view of Japanese Patent No. S63-305745 to Kubota.
Regarding claim 3, Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson teaches the superconductor-based engine of claim 1.
Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson does not teach the engine being in the form of a rotary engine comprising a stator, a rotor, and the temperature-controlled superconductor acting as a source for mechanical motion transmission between the stator and the rotor.
However, Kubota teaches a rotary engine (Lines 13-14) comprising a stator (FIG. 1, 3), a rotor (FIG. 1, 2), and a temperature-controlled superconductor (FIG. 1, 1) acting as a source for mechanical motion transmission between the stator and rotor (Lines 56-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson with the rotary engine configuration of Kubota as converting the linear motion of the engine of Yannick in view of Dakhil, Chu, Travers, and Dickinson to the rotational motion of the engine of Kubota would be more useful in certain situations.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yannick in view of Travers and Dickinson.
Regarding claim 14, Yannick teaches a method of operating a superconductor-based engine (Paragraph [0002]), comprising:
Introducing a chilling fluid (FIG. 1, 1) into a superconductor chamber (FIG. 1, 10) to cool a superconductor (FIG. 1, 5) to a superconducting state (Paragraph [0012]);
utilizing the superconductor in the superconducting state to generate a mechanical motion (Paragraph [0004]);
and converting the mechanical motion to electrical energy (Paragraph [0004]).
Yannick does not teach regulating the introduction of the chilling fluid based on feedback from sensors monitoring the engine’s performance to alternately transition the superconductor between the superconducting state and a non-superconducting state, thereby maintaining a continuous oscillatory mechanical motion.
However, Travers teaches a chilling fluid (FIG. 2a, 118) introduced to a superconductor (FIG. 2a, 100) to alternately transition the superconductor between the superconducting state and a non-superconducting state, thereby maintaining a continuous oscillatory motion (Paragraph [0031]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick in view of with the chilling fluid oscillation of Travers to provide a more streamlined energy generation scheme for the superconductor-based engine.
Yannick in view of Travers does not teach regulating the introduction of the chilling fluid based on feedback from sensors monitoring the engine’s performance
However, Dickinson teaches a superconducting generator with a chilling fluid (FIG. 1, 14) and a sensor (FIG. 1, 40) introducing the fluid based on feedback monitoring the engine’s performance (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconductor-based engine of Yannick in view of Travers with the sensors of Dickinson ensure proper feedback-based electronic operation of the engine.
Regarding claim 15, Yannick in view of Travers and Dickinson teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Yannick further teaches the mechanical motion being linear motion in the case of a linear generator (Paragraph [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834