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. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 , 10 and 1 5 -17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunawan (US 2019/0217722 A1) (“Gunawan ‘722”) . Referring to Claim 1 : Gunawan ‘722 discloses a maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system, comprising: at least one dipole-line magnet track (Fig. 4) (Para. [0029]) , wherein the at least one dipole-line magnet track includes a first dipole-line magnet and a second-dipole line magnet disposed in parallel (Figs. 5 and 6) (Para. [0036]) ; a levitating diamagnet (“diamagnetic rod”) disposed on the at least one dipole-line magnet track (Figs. 5 and 6) (Para. [0036]) ; and a vehicle connected to the levitating diamagnet (Fig. 6) (Para. [0036]) . Referring to Claim 1 0 : Gunawan ‘722 discloses the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first dipole-line magnet and the second dipole-line magnet has a substantially round shape in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 5) (Para. [0036]) . Referring to Claim 1 5 : Gunawan ‘722 discloses the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system of claim 1, wherein the at least one dipole-line magnet track has a horizontal magnetic field direction (Figs. 5 and 6) (Para. [003 5 ]) . Referring to Claim 1 6 : Gunawan ‘722 discloses the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system of claim 1, wherein the levitating diamagnet includes at least one of graphite (Para. [0020], “ diamagnetic cylindrical object such as a graphite rod ”) and bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide (BSSCO). Referring to Claim 1 7 : Gunawan ‘722 discloses a maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system, comprising: a plurality of parallel dipole-line magnet tracks (Fig. 4) (Para. [0029]) that extend in a substantially linear direction, wherein each of the plurality of parallel dipole-line magnet tracks include a first dipole-line magnet and a second-dipole line magnet (Figs. 5 and 6) (Para. [0036]); a diamagnetic rod (“diamagnetic rod”) disposed on each of the plurality of parallel dipole-line magnet tracks (Fig. 6) (Para. [0036]) ; and a train with protrusions connected to the diamagnetic rods (Fig. 6) (Para. [0036]) . 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. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunawan ‘722 in view of Rote et al. (US 5,253,591) . Referring to Claim 2 : Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach at least one propulsion wire rack connected to the vehicle. However, Rote teaches a high speed maglev design, comprising at least one propulsion wire rack (18) connected to the vehicle (10) (Fig. 1) (Col. 5, lines 21-24) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gunawan ‘722 to provide propulsion via a wire rack (i.e. coils), as taught by Rote, in order to provide propulsion separate from levitation and thereby simplify control of these separate functions with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunawan ‘722 in view of Lucas et al. (US 3,664,268). Referring to Claim 6 : Gunawan ‘722 further teaches the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system, wherein the levitating diamagnet is a super conductor rod (Para. [0032-0034]) . As noted by strikethrough above, Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach that the diamagnetic rod is a super conductor. However, Lucas teaches a system for and method of levitating vehicles in a ground transportation system, wherein the levitating diamagnet is a super conductor panel (51, 52) (Fig. 15) (Col. 7, line 66 – Col. 8, line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gunawan ‘722 to make the diamagnetic rod a superconductor , as taught by Lucas , in order “ to provide minimum losses and maximum levitation forces ” (Lucas, Col. 8, lines 8-9) with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 7 : Gunawan ‘722 further teaches the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system, wherein the super conductor rod is at least partially disposed between the first dipole-line magnet and the second dipole-line magnet (Figs. 5 and 6) (Para. [0036]) . Referring to Claim 8 : Gunawan ‘722 further teaches the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system, wherein a lower surface of the superconductor rod has a complimentary shape to disposed surfaces of the at least one dipole-line magnet track in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 5) (Para. [0036]) . Referring to Claim 9 : Gunawan ‘722 further teaches the maglev with a dipole-line magnet track system, wherein the superconductor rod is substantially cylindrical (Fig. 5) (Para. [003 2 ]) . Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunawan ‘722 in view of Oster (US 2014/0261055 A1) Referring to Claim 11 : Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach a cryogenic tank connected to the levitating diamagnet. However, Oster teaches an evacuated tube transport system with improved cooling for superconductive elements, comprising a cryogenic tank (110) connected to the levitating superconductor magnet (100) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0062]) (Fig. 2b) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gunawan ‘722 to provide a cryogenic tank for a superconducting magnet, as taught by Oster, in order to provide maximum levitation forces at required superconductor temperatures with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 12 : Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach a cryogenic tank connected to the levitating diamagnet, wherein the cryogenic tank at least partially surrounds the levitating diamagnet . However, Oster teaches an evacuated tube transport system with improved cooling for superconductive elements, comprising a cryogenic tank (110) connected to the levitating superconductor magnet (100) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0062]) (Fig. 2b) , wherein the cryogenic tank (110) at least partially surrounds (“houses”) the levitating diamagnet (100) (Para. [0064]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gunawan ‘722 to provide a cryogenic tank for housing a superconducting magnet, as taught by Oster, in order to provide maximum levitation forces at required superconductor temperatures with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 13 : Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach a cryogenic tank connected to the levitating diamagnet, wherein the cryogenic tank is further connected to the vehicle. However, Oster teaches an evacuated tube transport system with improved cooling for superconductive elements, comprising a cryogenic tank (110) connected to the levitating superconductor magnet (100) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0062]) (Fig. 2b), wherein the cryogenic tank (110) is further connected (via 150) to the vehicle (300) (Fig. 7) (Para. [0069]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gunawan ‘722 to provide a cryogenic tank connected to the vehicle for housing a superconducting magnet, as taught by Oster, in order to provide maximum levitation forces to the vehicle at required superconductor temperatures with a reasonable expectation of success. Referring to Claim 14 : Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach a cryogenic tank connected to the levitating diamagnet, wherein the cryogenic tank contains at least one cryogenics liquid. However, Oster teaches an evacuated tube transport system with improved cooling for superconductive elements, comprising a cryogenic tank (110) connected to the levitating superconductor magnet (100) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0062]) (Fig. 2b), wherein the cryogenic tank (110) contains at least one cryogenics liquid (300) (Fig. 7) (Para. [0072-0073]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Gunawan ‘722 to provide a cryogenic tank with liquid coolant, as taught by Oster, in order to provide maximum levitation forces to the vehicle at required superconductor temperatures, using an appropriate liquid heat-sink substance, with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 18-20 are allowed. Claim s 3-5 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: Regarding claim 3 and depending claims 4 and 5, Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach that “ the at least one propulsion wire rack has a serpentine coil shape and magnetic shielding at alternate segments of the serpentine coil shape ,” as recited in claim 3. While Rote teaches a propulsion wire rack (18) and magnetic shielding (24) (Col. 4, lines 53-67) , Rote fails to teach a serpentine coil shape with magnetic shielding at alternate segments. Modifying Gunawan ‘722 in this manner would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning. Regarding claim 18 and depending claims 19 and 20, Gunawan ‘722 does not specifically teach that “ the plurality of propulsion wire racks has a serpentine coil shape and magnetic shielding at alternate vertical segments of the serpentine coil shape ,” as recited in claim 18. While Rote teaches a propulsion wire rack (18) and magnetic shielding (24) (Col. 4, lines 53-67), Rote fails to teach a serpentine coil shape with magnetic shielding at alternate segments. Modifying Gunawan ‘722 in this manner would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning. Conclusion The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gunawan et al. (US 2019/0227131 A1) (“Gunawan ‘131”) teaches that “[m] aterials such as graphite, bismuth, and metals like copper, gold, etc. are diamagnetic .” (Para. [0035]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7858 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6682 . 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. /ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A