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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending wherein claims 1-12 and 19-21 are under examination and claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a method for making niobium-zirconium alloys. Applicant’s election of claims 1-12 and 19-21 was made without traverse in the Response filed on April 7, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kneip et al. (US 3,215,569).
In regard to claims 1 and 4, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses niobium-zirconium alloys such as niobium base alloys having 33 atomic percent zirconium that would be annealed for short periods at 800°C (Example, columns 3-4). Kneip et al. (‘569) also teaches that at 800°C, the niobium-zirconium alloy would form two bcc phases, one enriched in zirconium and the other enriched in niobium (ordered) (column 3, lines 4-13). Since, only niobium and zirconium are specified, niobium and zirconium would account for 100 atomic percent. Therefore, Kneip et al. (‘569) anticipates the claims.
In regard to claim 2, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses niobium base alloys having 33 atomic percent zirconium that would be annealed for short periods at 800°C (Example, columns 3-4). The niobium content would be 67 atomic percent and would read on the claim.
In regard to claim 3, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses niobium base alloys having 33 atomic percent zirconium that would be annealed for short periods at 800°C (Example, columns 3-4). When converting into weight percent, the zirconium content would be 33.4 weight percent.
With respect to the recitation “having a critical temperature (Tc) of 9 – 17 K under ambient conditions” in claim 5, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses the same composition and structure. Therefore, the claimed property would be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “having an increased critical field as compared to Nb; and/or reduced BCS resistance as compared to Nb” in claim 8, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses the same composition and structure. Therefore, the claimed property would be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “comprising less than 0.5 wt% hexagonal Zr phase” in claim 9, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses niobium base alloys having 33 atomic percent zirconium that would be annealed for short periods at 800°C (Example, columns 3-4). Kneip et al. (‘569) also teaches that at 800°C, the niobium-zirconium alloy would form two bcc phases, one enriched in zirconium and the other enriched in niobium (ordered) (column 3, lines 4-13). Since no hexagonal phase is disclosed in this instance, Kneip et al. (‘569) would read on the claim at 800°C.
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneip et al. (US 3,215,569) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2,985,531).
In regard to claim 6, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses niobium-zirconium alloys as set forth above and indicates that the alloys would not be limited to binary alloys (column 6). However, Kneip e tal. (‘569) does not specify the presence of zirconium dioxide.
Gordon et al. (‘531) teaches adding 1 weight percent titanium and heat treating at 1000°C for 85 hours in order to form a dense and adherent oxide film or surface coating including niobium and zirconium oxides (columns 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing the instant invention to modify the niobium-zirconium alloys, as disclosed by Kneip et al. (‘569), by adding 1 weight percent titanium and heating at 1000°C for 85 hours, as disclosed by Gordon et al. (‘531), in order to form an alloy having dense, adherent oxide film or surface coating with zirconium oxides, as disclosed by Gordon et al. (‘531) (columns 3-4).
In regard to claim 7, Kneip et al. (‘569), and further in view of Gordon et al. (‘531) species forming dense, adherent oxide film or surface coating as set forth above. While the thickness of the oxide film or surface coating is not specified, merely changing the thickness of the adherent oxide film or surface coating would not be sufficient to patently distinguish from the prior art adherent oxide film or surface coating. MPEP 2144.05(IV)(A).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneip et al. (US 3,215,569) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sun et al. (First Demonstration of ZrNb Alloyed Surface for Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavities).
In regard to claim 12, Kneip et al. (‘569) discloses niobium-zirconium alloys for superconducting applications (title and column 1) as set forth above, but Kneip et al. (‘569) does not specify wherein the niobium-zirconium alloy would be present as a film on the SRF cavity surface.
Sun et al. teaches application of a niobium zirconium as a film on the SRF cavity surface in order to provide low surface resistance and high superconducting fields (page 882, right column and page 883, left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to use the niobium-zirconium alloys, as disclosed by Kneip et al. (‘569), in the SRF cavities, as disclosed by Sun et al., in order to provide low surface resistance and high superconducting fields, as disclosed by Sun et al. (page 882, right column and page 883, left column).
In regard to claim 11, Kneip et al. (‘569) in view of Sun et al. suggests putting the niobium-zirconium alloys on the surface of the cavity and therefore would read on a surface region thereof.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneip et al. (US 3,215,569) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Sun et al. (First Demonstration of ZrNb Alloyed Surface for Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavities) and Ciovati (Effect of low-temperature baking on the radio-frequency properties of niobium superconducting cavities for particle accelerators).
In regard to claim 19, Kneip et al. (‘563), and further in view of Sun et al. teaches using niobium-zirconium alloys for SRF cavities, but neither Kneip et al. (‘563) nor Sun et al. specify wherein the SRF cavities would be in particle accelerators.
Ciovati teaches that SRF cavities are widely used to accelerate a charged particle in particle accelerators (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to use the niobium-zirconium alloys in SRF cavities, as disclosed by Kneip et al. (‘563) and Sun et al., in particle accelerators, as disclosed by Ciovati, in order to accelerate a charged particle beam, as disclosed by Ciovati (abstract).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneip et al. (US 3,215,569) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Sun et al. (First Demonstration of ZrNb Alloyed Surface for Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavities) and Sharping (Joints and Shape imperfections in High-Q SRF Cavities for RF Optomechanics).
In regard to claim 21, Kneip et al. (‘563), and further in view of Sun et al. teaches using niobium-zirconium alloys for SRF cavities, but neither Kneip et al. (‘563) nor Sun et al. specify wherein the SRF cavities would be in quantum computers.
Sharping discloses wherein SRF cavities would be attractive in quantum computers because they can be constructed to confine high electric field strengths while also maintaining high quality factors (Background).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to use the niobium-zirconium SRF cavities, as disclosed by Kneip et al. (‘563) and Sun et al., in quantum computers, as disclosed by Sharping, in order to confine high electric field strengths while also maintaining high quality factors, as disclosed by Sharping (Background).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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.
In regard to claim 10, neither Kneip et al. (‘569), Gordon et al. (‘531), Sun et al., Ciovati nor the other prior art disclose or adequately suggest niobium-zirconium alloys with rock-salt NbZrC or NbC.
In regard to claim 20, neither Kneip et al. (‘569), Gordon et al. (‘531), Sun et al., Ciovati nor the other prior art disclose or adequately suggest a superconductor-insulator-superconductor tunnel junction (SIS) comprising a first superconductor/electrode, a second superconductor/electrode, and a barrier layer between the first superconductor/electrode and the second superconductor/electrode, wherein the first superconductor/electrode and the second superconductor/electrode comprise the niobium-zirconium alloy set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mynel (‘090) discloses high performance SRF accelerator structure and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights