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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9, 11-19) in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending in the application with claims 20-21 withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are examined herein.
Drawings
Figures 1-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) for the following reasons:
Reference characters “301” (see e.g., 4:32-34) and “311” (see e.g., 5:12-14) have both been used to designate the “toroidal field coil”
Reference characters “307” (see e.g., 8:34-5:1) and “400” (see e.g., 18:21-23) have both been used to designate the “central column”
Reference characters “401” (see e.g., 5:27-29) and “402” (see e.g., 18:24-26) have both been used to designate the “toroidal field coil”
Reference character “311” has been used to designate both the “curved section” (see e.g., 5:1-5) and “toroidal field coil” (see e.g., 5:12-14)
Reference character “400” has been used to designate both the “annular segment” (see e.g., 5:18-20) and “central column” (see e.g., 18:21-23)
Reference character “402” has been used to designate both the “HTS cable”/“HTS assembly” (see e.g., 5:23-27) and “winding pack” (see e.g., 18:24-26).
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 Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “each of the HTS tapes comprising HTS material having an associated critical current that is dependent on a magnetic field at the HTS tape” should be amended to recite “each of the HTS tapes comprising HTS material and having an associated critical current at the respective HTS tape”
Claims 2-3: “the HTS tape” should be amended to recite “the respective HTS tape”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “a winding pack comprising the first and second HTS assemblies and a support member extending across a side of the winding pack, the cooling mechanism comprising a channel within the support member”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “a support member having one or more channels”. It is unclear the relationship between the “support member” recited in claim 18 and the “support member” previously recited in parent claim 1. It is similarly unclear the relationship between the “channel” recited in claim 18 and the “one or more channels” previously recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the first and second HTS assemblies each comprise part of respective planar coils comprising nested windings of HTS tapes wound about an axis”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “a toroidal field coil” and “an axis of the central column”. It is unclear the relationship between the “planar coils” recited in claim 19 and the “toroidal field coil” previously recited in parent claim 1. It is also unclear the relationship between the “axis” recited in claim 19 and the “axis of the central column” previously recited in parent claim 1.
Note on Claim Interpretation
As best understood by Examiner, the features of “a cooling mechanism configured to preferentially cool the first HTS assembly relative to the second HTS assembly to reduce or eliminate a difference in the critical current of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly relative to the critical current of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly” as recited in claim 1 and “a thermal impedance between the or each cooling channel and the first assembly is less than a thermal impedance between the or each cooling channel and the second assembly” as recited in claim 8 are realized by providing the “cooling mechanism” closer to the “first HTS assembly” than the “second HTS assembly” (see instant specification, 18:13-19, 20:35-21:2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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 1-2, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2016/0232988 (“Sykes”).
Regarding claim 1, Sykes (corresponding WO Publication cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1-3, 7A, 7C) discloses a central column (108) for a tokamak plasma chamber (107) ([0042]), the central column comprising:
a toroidal field coil (101-106) comprising first and second high temperature superconductor, HTS, assemblies (“cable”) (109, 302, 61b) comprising a respective one or more HTS tapes (200, 301) for conducting electrical current parallel to an axis of the central column, each of the HTS tapes comprising HTS material (203, 303) having an associated critical current that is dependent on a magnetic field at the HTS tape when the toroidal field coil is in use ([0042]-[0043], [0047]-[0050]);
a cooling mechanism (62, 62a) configured to preferentially cool the first HTS assembly (e.g., a radially outermost HTS assembly) relative to the second HTS assembly (e.g., a more radially inward HTS assembly) to reduce or eliminate a difference in the critical current of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly relative to the critical current of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly ([0059]-[0062]; Sykes’ cooling mechanism is provided closer to the radially outermost HTS assembly than the radially innermost HTS assembly – see above Note on Claim Interpretation); and
a support member (61c, 110, 111) having one or more channels, the first and second HTS assemblies being provided in the one or more channels of the support member ([0042], [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1 and further discloses the critical current of each HTS tape is inversely dependent on the strength of the magnetic field at the HTS tape such that the critical current decreases as the strength of the magnetic field increases, and the strength of the magnetic field at the first HTS assembly is greater than the strength of the magnetic field at the second HTS assembly ([0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1 and further discloses the cooling mechanism comprises one or more cooling channels (62a) through which to flow a cryogenic fluid (FIGS. 7A, 7C, [0017], [0045], [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 6 and further discloses the or each cooling channel extends in a direction parallel to the axis of the central column (FIGS. 7A, 7C).
Regarding claim 8, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 6 and further discloses a thermal impedance between the or each cooling channel and the first HTS assembly is less than a thermal impedance between the or each cooling channel and the second HTS assembly (FIGS. 1B, 7A, 7C; Sykes’ cooling mechanism is provided closer to the radially outermost HTS assembly than the radially innermost HTS assembly – see above Note on Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 9, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 6 and further discloses a shortest distance between the or each cooling channel and the first HTS assembly is less than a shortest distance between the or each cooling channel and the second HTS assembly, each of the distances being measured in a plane perpendicular to the axis (FIGS. 1B, 7A, 7C).
Regarding claim 11, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1 and further discloses the or each channel extends in a direction parallel to the axis of the central column (FIG. 1B, 7A, 7C, [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1 and further discloses at least a part of the support member comprises a body portion (61c, 110) made of a thermally conductive material (e.g., copper) (FIGS. 1B, 7C, [0042], [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 12 and further discloses the thermally conductive material comprises copper ([0042], [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 12 and further discloses the cooling mechanism is configured to cool the body portion through a face of the body portion, the body portion being in contact with the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly through one or more walls of the or each channel of the support member in which the first and second HTS assemblies are provided, whereby the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly is or are cooled by the body portion (FIGS. 1B, 7A, 7C, [0042], [0045], [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 12 and further discloses at least a portion of the second HTS assembly is located radially inwards of the first HTS assembly, the portion being in thermal contact with the body portion, whereby heat is transferred from the portion of the second HTS assembly to the cooling mechanism via the body portion (FIGS. 1B, 7A, 7C, [0042], [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1 and further discloses a winding pack comprising the first and second HTS assemblies, the support member extending across a side of the winding pack, the cooling mechanism comprising a channel (62a) within the support member (FIGS. 1B, 7A, 7C, [0042], [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1 and further discloses the first and second HTS assemblies each comprise part of respective planar coils comprising nested windings of HTS tapes wound about an axis (FIG. 1A, [0042], [0045]-[0046], [0056]).
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication No. 2019/150096 (“Langtry”) in view of GB Publication No. 2570666 (“Slade”).
Regarding claim 1, Langtry (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIG. 3) discloses a central column (300) for a tokamak plasma chamber (Abstract), the central column comprising:
a toroidal field coil comprising first and second high temperature superconductor, HTS, assemblies (301) comprising a respective one or more HTS tapes (2:11-26, 4:11-15, 5:23-25);
a cooling mechanism (304) configured to preferentially cool the first HTS assembly (e.g., a radially outermost HTS assembly) relative to the second HTS assembly (e.g., a radially central HTS assembly) to reduce or eliminate a difference in the critical current of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly relative to the critical current of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly (2:33-34, 5:23-25; Langtry’s cooling mechanism is provided closer to the radially outermost HTS assembly than the radially central HTS assembly – see above Note on Claim Interpretation); and
a support member (302-306) having one or more channels, the first and second HTS assemblies being provided in the one or more channels of the support member.
While Langtry discloses the HTS assemblies each comprise one or more HTS tapes (2:11-26, 4:11-15, 5:23-25), Langtry appears to be silent as to the specific structure of the HTS tapes and the arrangement of the HTS tapes relative to an axis of the central column. Slade (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1-3, 8, 10) is similarly directed towards a central column (801) comprising a toroidal field coil comprising first and second HTS assemblies (1011-1016) comprising a respective one or more HTS tapes (200, 500) (1:5-7, 1:26-35). Slade teaches each of the HTS tapes conducts electrical current parallel to an axis of the central column, comprises HTS material (301, 503), and has an associated critical current that is dependent on a magnetic field at the HTS tape (1:5-7, 1:26-35, 2:16-19, 2:33-3:28, 5:33-6:2, 8:5-8). Slade further teaches this configuration of the HTS assemblies provides the advantages of increasing the critical current (2:33-3:13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to employ the HTS assemblies as taught by Slade in Langtry’s central column for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Langtry in order to increase the critical current, as suggested by Slade, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 3, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1. Slade further teaches each of the HTS tapes has an associated plane defined with respect to a crystal structure of the HTS material of the HTS tape and the critical current of each HTS tape depends on a field angle between the magnetic field at the HTS tape and the plane of the HTS tape, the critical current decreasing as the field angle increases, the HTS assemblies being arranged such that the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly is greater than the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly (2:21-3:9, 8:12-9:3). Thus, Langtry, modified to employ the HTS assemblies as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 3, wherein for each of the HTS assemblies, the respective planes of the HTS tapes of the HTS assembly are parallel to one another. Slade teaches for each of the HTS assemblies, the respective planes of the HTS tapes of the HTS assembly are parallel to one another (FIG. 10, 5:33-6:2, 8:5-8). Thus, Langtry, modified to employ the HTS assemblies as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 4. Slade teaches the planes of the HTS tapes in the first HTS assembly are parallel to the planes of the HTS tapes in the second HTS assembly (FIG. 10, 5:33-6:2, 8:5-8). Thus, Langtry, modified to employ the HTS assemblies as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1. Langtry discloses the cooling mechanism comprises one or more cooling channels (304) through which to flow a cryogenic fluid (FIG. 3, 2:33-34, 5:23-25)
Regarding claim 7, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 6. Langtry discloses the or each cooling channel extends in a direction parallel to the axis of the central column (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 6. Langtry discloses a thermal impedance between the or each cooling channel and the first HTS assembly is less than a thermal impedance between the or each cooling channel and the second HTS assembly (FIG. 3; the modified Langtry’s cooling mechanism is provided closer to the radially outermost HTS assembly than the radially innermost HTS assembly – see above Note on Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 9, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 6. Langtry discloses a shortest distance between the or each cooling channel and the first HTS assembly is less than a shortest distance between the or each cooling channel and the second HTS assembly, each of the distances being measured in a plane perpendicular to the axis (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1. Langtry discloses the or each channel extends in a direction parallel to the axis of the central column (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1. Langtry discloses at least a part of the support member comprises a body portion (305) made of a thermally conductive material (e.g., copper) (FIG. 3, 3:1-2, 4:21-24).
Regarding claim 13, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 12. Langtry discloses the thermally conductive material comprises copper (3:1-2, 4:21-24).
Regarding claim 14, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 12. Langtry discloses the cooling mechanism is configured to cool the body portion through a face of the body portion, the body portion being in contact with the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly through one or more walls (303) of the or each channel of the support member in which the first and second HTS assemblies are provided, whereby the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly is or are cooled by the body portion (FIG. 3, 3:1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 12. Langtry discloses the cooling mechanism comprises a cooling channel (306) within the body portion, the body portion being in contact with the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly through one or more walls (303) of the or each channel of the support member in which the first and second HTS assemblies are provided, whereby the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly is or are cooled by the body portion (FIG. 3, 3:1-2, 6:18-19).
Regarding claim 16, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 12. Langtry discloses at least a portion of the second HTS assembly is located radially inwards of the first HTS assembly, the portion being in thermal contact with the body portion, whereby heat is transferred from the portion of the second HTS assembly to the cooling mechanism via the body portion (FIG. 3, 3:1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 12. Langtry discloses the support member comprises another part (306) located radially inwards of the body portion and having a higher mechanical strength than the body portion (FIG. 3, 5:26-29, 6:1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1. Slade teaches a winding pack comprising the first and second HTS assemblies (FIG. 5). Langtry discloses the support member extends across the first and second HTS assemblies, the cooling mechanism comprising a channel (304) within the support member (FIG. 3, 2:33-34, 5:23-25). Thus, Langtry, modified to employ the HTS assemblies as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1. Slade teaches the first and second HTS assemblies each comprise part of respective planar coils comprising nested windings of HTS tapes wound about an axis (FIG. 5). Thus, Langtry, modified to employ the HTS assemblies as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 19.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langtry in view of Slade, further in view of Sykes.
Regarding claim 2, Langtry in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 1, but appears to be silent as to the strength of the magnetic field at the first HTS assembly relative to the strength of the magnetic field at the second HTS assembly. However, Langtry discloses the first HTS assembly is radially outward of the second HTS assembly (FIG. 3). It was known in the art that the critical current of each HTS tape is inversely dependent on the strength of the magnetic field at the HTS tape and the strength of the magnetic field at a radially outward HTS assembly is greater than the strength of the magnetic field at a more radially inward HTS assembly. For example, Sykes (see FIGS. 1-2, 6) is similarly directed towards a central column (108) comprising a first, radially outward HTS assembly (“cable”) (109, 602) and a second, more radially inward HTS assembly (“cable”) (109, 601) ([0042]-[0043]). Sykes teaches the critical current of each HTS tape is inversely dependent on the strength of the magnetic field at the HTS tape such that the critical current decreases as the strength of the magnetic field increases, and the strength of the magnetic field at the first HTS assembly is greater than the strength of the magnetic field at the second HTS assembly ([0049]-[0050]). Thus, the skilled artisan would have recognized that the strength of the magnetic field at the modified Langtry’s first HTS assembly is greater than the strength of the magnetic field at the modified Langtry’s second HTS assembly, which is closer to the center of the central column than the first HTS assembly (Langtry, FIG. 3; Sykes, [0050]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sykes in view of Slade.
Regarding claim 3, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 1, but appears to be silent as to a crystal structure of the HTS material and the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly relative to the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly as recited in claim 3. Slade (see FIGS. 1-3, 8, 10) is similarly directed towards a central column (801) comprising a toroidal field coil comprising first and second HTS assemblies (1011-1016) comprising a respective one or more HTS tapes (200, 500), each of the HTS tapes comprising HTS material (301, 503) and having an associated critical current that is dependent on a magnetic field at the HTS tape (1:5-7, 1:26-35, 2:33-3:28). Slade teaches each of the HTS tapes has an associated plane defined with respect to a crystal structure of the HTS material of the HTS tape and the critical current of each HTS tape depends on a field angle between the magnetic field at the HTS tape and the plane of the HTS tape, the critical current decreasing as the field angle increases, the HTS assemblies being arranged such that the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly is greater than the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly (2:21-3:9, 8:12-9:3). Slade further teaches this arrangement provides the advantages of providing alignment of the planes of the HTS tapes and the magnetic field (8:21-32). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to arrange Sykes’s HTS assemblies such that the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly is greater than the field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly, as taught by Slade, for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Sykes in order to enhance alignment, as suggested by Slade, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 4, Sykes in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 3. Sykes discloses for each of the HTS assemblies, the respective planes of the HTS tapes of the HTS assembly are parallel to one another (FIGS. 1A-B, 7C, [0049]). Slade similarly teaches for each of the HTS assemblies, the respective planes of the HTS tapes of the HTS assembly are parallel to one another (FIG. 10, 5:33-6:2, 8:5-8). Thus, Sykes, modified to arrange the HTS assemblies to have a field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly that is greater than a field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Sykes in view of Slade teaches the central column according to claim 4. Sykes discloses the planes of the HTS tapes in the first HTS assembly are parallel to the planes of the HTS tapes in the second HTS assembly (FIGS. 1A-B, 7C, [0049]). Slade similarly teaches the planes of the HTS tapes in the first HTS assembly are parallel to the planes of the HTS tapes in the second HTS assembly (FIG. 10, 5:33-6:2, 8:5-8). Thus, Sykes, modified to arrange the HTS assemblies to have a field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the first HTS assembly that is greater than a field angle between the magnetic field and the plane of the or each HTS tape of the second HTS assembly as taught by Slade, would have resulted in the features of claim 5.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sykes in view of Langtry.
Regarding claim 15, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 12 and further discloses the body portion being in contact with the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly through one or more walls of the or each channel of the support member in which the first and second HTS assemblies are provided, whereby the first HTS assembly and/or the second HTS assembly is or are cooled by the body portion (FIGS. 1B, 7A, 7C, [0042], [0045], [0059]-[0062]), but does not appear to disclose the cooling mechanism comprises a cooling channel within the body portion. Langtry (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a central column (300) comprising HTS assemblies (301) provided within one or more channels of a support member (302-306) and cooled by a cooling mechanism (304, 304b) (2:11-26, 5:22-29, 6:17-19). Langtry teaches the support member comprises a body portion (305) made of a thermally conductive metal (e.g., copper) (3:1-2, 4:21-24) and the cooling mechanism comprises a cooling channel (304b) within the body portion (6:17-19). Langtry further teaches the cooling channel provides the advantages of supplementary cooling (6:17-19). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include the cooling channel as taught by Langtry in Sykes’s central column for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Sykes in order to provide additional cooling, as suggested by Langtry, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 17, Sykes discloses the central column according to claim 12, but does not appear to disclose the support member comprises another part located radially inwards of the body portion and having a higher mechanical strength than the body portion. Langtry (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a central column (300) comprising HTS assemblies (301) provided within one or more channels of a support member (302-306) (2:11-26, 5:22-29). Langtry teaches the support member comprises a body portion (305) made of a thermally conductive metal (e.g., copper) (3:1-2, 4:21-24) and another part (306) located radially inwards of the body portion and having a higher mechanical strength than the body portion (5:26-29, 6:1-3). Langtry further teaches the another part provides the advantages reducing hoop and radial stresses in the central column (5:31-6:3). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include the another part as taught by Langtry in Sykes’s central column for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Sykes in order to enhance the structural strength of the central column, as suggested by Langtry, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Additional References
The following references would also appear to be applicable to the claimed invention:
US Publication No. 2021/0012929: discloses a toroidal field coil comprising HTS assemblies (140) and a cooling mechanism (340, 350), but does not appear to disclose preferentially cooling a first HTS assembly relative to a second HTS assembly (FIGS. 13B, 14)
US Publication No. 2023/0307149: discloses a central column (107) comprising a toroidal field coil (101) comprising HTS assemblies (201A-F) comprising a cooling mechanism (FIGS. 1-2, [0061])
US Publication No. 2019/0267171: discloses a central column (102) comprising a toroidal field coil comprising HTS assemblies (1301, 1302, 1303) and a cooling mechanism (1305, 1306, 1307), but does not appear to disclose preferentially cooling a first HTS assembly relative to a second HTS assembly (FIGS. 1, 13)
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights