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 .
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 (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 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 10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0281995 A1 [hereinafter Williams].
Regarding Claim 10:
Williams teaches an apparatus (Abstract: a deployable electromagnetic radiation deflector shield (DERDS)), comprising:
a structure having a base (Fig.8-8) and structural components ((Fig.8- 6 and 7) extending upward from the base (Fig. 8 and para. [0038]: as shown in Fig. 8, a structure having a surface 8, and structural components including ecliptic track 6 and uprights 7, the uprights 7 extending upwards from the base supporting the ecliptic track 6); and
electromagnetic circuitry coupled to the structure in an elevated position relative to the base (paras. [0033-0034, 0038]: the electromagnetic shielding apparatus (DERDS) includes an electromagnet (“electromagnetic circuitry”) and is deployed/positioned relative to a protected target region (e.g., a spacecraft or base station) within the surface),
the electromagnetic circuitry including coiled circuitry and being configured to divert radiation, which is propagating in a direction toward a target area adjacent the base (paras. [0033-0038]: the electromagnet has copper windings or other conducting metal coil assemblies, (“coiled circuitry”), and is configured to generate electromagnetic field to deflect/divert incoming high-energy radiation so that the radiation is redirected away from the protected region),
by generating an electromagnetic shield in response to current being driven through the coiled circuitry, and therein electromagnetically shielding the target area (paras. [0033-0034]: generating a magnetic field by supply electrical power from a power supply to the electromagnet (i.e., energizing the electromagnet coil by driving current), thereby creating the electromagnetic shield and ensure the zone of minim radiation).
Regarding Claim 17:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Williams further teaches wherein the electromagnetic circuitry is configured to cast a cosmic ray shadow over the target area by diverting cosmic ray muons and therein shielding the target area from ionizing radiation (paras. [0002, 0014, 0033-0034 and 0038]: shielding a protected target (e.g., spacecraft/base station) from high energy solar/cosmic radiation by deploying the electromagnetic shielding apparatus to deflect incoming radiation via Lorentz forces, thereby creating a protected “zone of minimum radiation” (i.e., a cosmic radiation shadow) over the target area. Williams further explains that the shielding apparatus is intended to protect against “high-energy (cosmic) radiation” and addresses interaction with “charged particles/ions” in the magnetic field. Under BRI, shielding high-energy cosmic radiation by magnetic-field deflection included shielding charged cosmic-ray components such as muons, thereby includes casting a cosmic ray shadow over the target area).
Regarding Claim 18:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Williams further teaches wherein the electromagnetic circuitry includes a power supply configured to drive the current through the coiled circuitry (paras. [0033-0034]: “DERDS-10 generates a strong magnetic field by using the electricity from the power supply-3 applied to the super cooled electromagnet-9”),
further including a coolant supply configured to carry coolant and coupled relative to the coiled circuitry to cool the coiled circuitry while the electromagnetic shield is being generated (paras. [0033-0034]: “a cooling unit supplied liquid in in a closed loop system or the like through coils… surrounding the electromagnet enabling a super conductive electromagnet” to “maintain the magnet at superconducting temperatures when needed for magnetic field strength”).
Regarding Claim 19:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Williams further teaches passive shielding configured to shield at least a portion of the target area from environmental gamma rays (Abstract: “DERDS…creates a magnetic field to deflect incoming solar radiation, including CMEs (coronal mass ejections) and repositioned for x-ray and gamma ray bursts from distant supernovae”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Williams further teaches wherein the electromagnetic circuitry includes respective coils arranged in different positions relative to one another (Fig. 7 and para. [0037]: discloses “several… DERDS…deployed and maintaining formation with one another.” Each DERDS includes an electromagnet (i.e., coiled electromagnetic circuitry), and thus the coils of the respective DERDS are arranged in different positions relative to one another when deployed in formation),
each of the respective coils being configured to: divert radiation propagating in a direction different from radiation diverted by another one of the respective coils (Fig. 7 and para. [0037]: disclosing “one DERD-3 protects from the solar radiation and the other positions itself to deflect the planetary radiation,” i.e., one electromagnet diverting radiation different from another), and
shield a different portion of the target area relative to a portion of the target area shielded by the other one of the respective coils (Fig. 7 and para. [0037]: discloses that the coils shield different portions of the target area relative to one another because the protected “zone of minimum radiation” can be made larger or have its shape changed by repositioning the formation of DERDS, indicating that different DERDS/coil units contribute to shielding different spatial regions of the overall protected area).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of US 2009/0122508 A1 [hereinafter Uchaykin].
Regarding Claim 1:
Williams teaches a method (para. [0002]: a method of protecting manned spacecraft, manned base stations from high energy cosmic radiations), the method comprising:
using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry and being coupled to a structure in an elevated position relative to the target area (paras. [0033, 0034, 0038]: discloses a electromagnetic shielding apparatus (DERDS) includes an electromagnet which has copper windings or other conducting metal coil assemblies (“electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry”), deployed/positioned relative to a protected target region (e.g., a spacecraft or base station) such that the electromagnetic shielding apparatus is located between incoming radiation and the protected region),
generating an electromagnetic field over the target area by driving current through the coiled circuitry (paras. [0033-0034]: generating a magnetic field by supply electrical power from a power supply to the electromagnet (i.e., energizing the electromagnet coil by driving current), thereby creating the electromagnetic shield over protected area); and
using the electromagnetic field to divert radiation propagating in a direction toward the target area, therein electromagnetically shielding the target area (paras. [0033-0038]: using the electromagnetic field generated by the electromagnet to deflect/divert incoming high-energy radiation so that the radiation is redirected away from the protected region which is protected by the zone of minim radiation).
However, Williams does not specifically note mitigating qubit decoherence in the quantum circuitry. Uchaykin teaches mitigating qubit decoherence in the quantum circuitry (paras. [0013, 0042, and 0046]: shielding a superconducting quantum processor (“quantum circuitry”) within a shielded enclosure where shielding from magnetic fields and radiation is desired).
Williams teaches using an electromagnetic-based shield to reduce radiation exposure within a protected region, and Uchaykin teaches that shielding from radiation is desired for a superconducting quantum processor. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Williams’ electromagnetic radiation-deflection shielding to a target area containing the superconducting quantum processor as taught by Uchaykin. Because both references address the same general problem of protecting sensitive equipment from radiation exposure, combining these teachings amounts to using a known radiation-shielding technique (electromagnetic deflection) to protect a known radiation-sensitive device (quantum circuitry), and yield a predictable result of reduced radiation reaching the quantum circuitry (thereby mitigating the quantum decoherence).
Regarding Claim 6:
Williams in view of Uchaykin teach the method of claim 1. Williams further teaches wherein: using the electromagnetic circuitry includes
coupling the electromagnetic circuitry to the structure in the elevated position, relative to a base of the structure located in the target area and anchored thereat (Fig. 8 and para. [0038]: mounting the electromagnetic shielding apparatus on an elevated supporting structure (i.e., in Fig, 8, ecliptic track 6 supported by uprights 7 anchored in surface 8) surrounding the bases station, relative to the protected base station located at the target area), and
using the electromagnetic field to divert radiation propagating in a direction toward the target area includes diverting radiation propagating in a direction that extends from the electromagnetic circuitry toward the base of the structure (Fig. 8 and para. [0038]: as shown in Fig. 8, the incoming solar radiation 2 propagates from the radiation source 1 toward the base station 10, and this incoming radiation is deflected by the magnetic field 4 generated by the electromagnetic shielding apparatus 3 “to be constantly inline between the radiation source 1 and the base station 10”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Williams in view of Uchaykin teach the method of claim 1. Williams further teaches wherein generating the electromagnetic field includes casting a cosmic ray shadow over the target area by diverting cosmic ray muons and therein shielding the target area and from ionizing radiation (paras. [0002 and 0014, 0033-0034 and 0038]: shielding a protected target (e.g., spacecraft/base station) from high energy solar/cosmic radiation by deploying the electromagnetic shielding apparatus to deflect incoming radiation via Lorentz forces, thereby creating a protected “zone of minimum radiation” (i.e., a cosmic radiation shadow) over the target area. Williams further explains that the shielding apparatus is intended to protect against high-energy cosmic radiation and addresses interaction with charged particles/ions in the magnetic field. Under BRI, shielding high-energy cosmic radiation by magnetic-field deflection included shielding charged cosmic-ray components such as muons, thereby includes casting a cosmic ray shadow over the target area). Uchaykin further teaches shielding quantum circuitry (paras. [001, 0042, and 0046]: shielding a superconducting quantum processor (“quantum circuitry”) within a shielded enclosure where shielding from magnetic fields and radiation is desired).
Regarding Claim 8:
Williams in view of Uchaykin teach the method of claim 1. Williams further teaches cooling the coiled circuitry while the electromagnetic shield is being generated (paras. [0033-0034]: a cooling unit supplies liquid through coils surrounding the electromagnet).
Regarding Claim 9:
Williams in view of Uchaykin teach the method of claim 1. Williams further teaches:
the electromagnetic circuitry includes respective coils arranged in different positions relative to one another (Fig. 7 and para. [0037]: discloses “several… DERDS…deployed and maintaining formation with one another.” Each DERDS includes an electromagnet (i.e., coiled electromagnetic circuitry), and thus the coils of the respective DERDS are arranged in different positions relative to one another when deployed in formation);
generating the electromagnetic field includes, for each of the respective coils, diverting radiation propagating in a direction different from radiation diverted by another one of the respective coils (Fig. 7 and para. [0037]: disclosing “one DERD-3 protects from the solar radiation and the other positions itself to deflect the planetary radiation,” i.e., one electromagnet diverting radiation different from another); and
using the electromagnetic field includes shielding a different portion of the target area relative to a portion of the target area shielded by the other one of the respective coils (Fig. 7 and para. [0037]: discloses that the coils shield different portions of the target area relative to one another because the protected “zone of minimum radiation” can be made larger or have its shape changed by repositioning the formation of DERDS, indicating that different DERDS/coil units contribute to shielding different spatial regions of the overall protected area).
Regarding Claim 16:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Williams further teaches:
generating an electromagnetic field over the target area (paras. [0033-0034]: generating a magnetic field by supply electrical power from a power supply to the electromagnet (i.e., energizing the electromagnet coil by driving current), thereby creating the electromagnetic shield over protected area); and
using the electromagnetic field to divert ionization radiation propagating towards the target area (paras. [0033-0038]: using the electromagnetic field generated by the electromagnet to deflect/divert incoming high-energy radiation so that the radiation is redirected away from the protected region which is protected by the zone of minim radiation).
However, Williams does not specifically note its shielding apparatus is configured to mitigate qubit decoherence in quantum circuitry. Uchaykin teaches mitigating qubit decoherence in the quantum circuitry (paras. [001, 0042, and 0046]: shielding a superconducting quantum processor (“quantum circuitry”) within a shielded enclosure where shielding from magnetic fields and radiation is desired).
Williams teaches using an electromagnetic-based shield to reduce radiation exposure within a protected region, and Uchaykin teaches that shielding from radiation is desired for a superconducting quantum processor. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Williams’ electromagnetic radiation-deflection shielding to a target area containing the superconducting quantum processor as taught by Uchaykin. Because both references address the same general problem of protecting sensitive equipment from radiation exposure, combining these teachings amounts to using a known radiation-shielding technique (electromagnetic deflection) to protect a known radiation-sensitive device (quantum circuitry), and yield a predictable result of reduced radiation reaching the quantum circuitry (thereby mitigating the quantum decoherence).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Uchaykin, further in view of US 4,792,652 [hereinafter Seguy].
Regarding Claim 2:
William in view of Uchaykin teach the method of claim 1. However, the combined reference does not specifically note that using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry includes using circuitry having coils arranged in a semicircular arrangement. Seguy teaches using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry includes using circuitry having coils arranged in a semicircular arrangement (Col. 3, Lls. 25-31: an inductor has two coils and each is of semi-circular shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the shielding coil geometry of Williams using semicircular coils as taught by Seguy, because coil geometry is a known design variable for fitting coils around a protected region while still producing the desired electromagnetic field distribution. A semicircular arrangement is a predictable alternative to other coil shapes for achieving coverage over a target area while accommodating mechanical/packaging constraints, without changing the intended shielding function of Williams.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Uchaykin, further in view of US 6,164,241 [hereinafter Chen].
Regarding Claim 3:
Williams in view of Uchaykin teach the method of claim 1. However, the combined reference does not specifically note that wherein using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry includes using circuitry having a plurality of respective coils having different dimensions and being collectively arranged in a dome-type arrangement. Chen teaches wherein using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry includes using circuitry having a plurality of respective coils having different dimensions and being collectively arranged in a dome-type arrangement (Col. 4, Lls. 58-64: discloses that “the coils can be arranged to conform to a dome-shaped dielectric window,” and further teaches that the disclosed principles apply to “domed… three-dimensional configurations having multiple coils with multiple turns.” Because a dome-type multi-coil configuration inherently involves providing multiple coils that span different radii/positions along the dome surface (i.e., coils of differing sizes/dimensions to collectively conform to the dome geometry), the claimed “coils having different dimensions” are also met in Chen).
Chen teaches using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry including a plurality of respective coils collectively arranged in a dome-type arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the shielding coil geometry of Williams using dome-shaped coils as taught by Chen, because using a plurality of coils of different dimensions arranged in a dome-type geometry is a known way to shape and distribute an electromagnetic field over a target region, and would predictably allow the radiation-deflecting electromatic field of Williams to be formed to cover a desired protected volume (e.g., over and around the target area) while maintaining the same basic operating principles of current-driven coils generating the shielding field.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Uchaykin and Chen, and further in view of US2011/0248811 A1 [hereinafter Kireev].
Regarding Claim 4:
The combined references of Williams, Uchaykin and Chen teach the method of claim 3. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the plurality of respective coils are arranged horizontally and stacked vertically relative to others of the coils. Kireev teaches wherein the plurality of respective coils are arranged horizontally and stacked vertically relative to others of the coils (Abstract and para. [0057]: each coil is concentric with respective to a vertical axis to each other coil and coils are vertically stacked).
Kireev teaches planar coils disposed in different conductive layers (i.e., horizontal coils) that are stacked vertically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use vertically stacked planar coils as taught in Kireev in the shielding coil system of Williams (and/or the dome-type arrangement of Chen), because stacking multiple planar coils is a known predictable approach to increase field strength and improve controllability/uniformity of the shielding field over a target area, without materially changing system function.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combined references of Williams, Uchaykin and Chen teach the method of claim 3. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the plurality of respective coils include a first stack of coils forming a first dome-type arrangement, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack; and a second stack of coils forming a second dome-type arrangement, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack, the second stack of coils being nested within the first stack of coils.
Kireev teaches the plurality of respective coils include:
a first stack of coils, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack (Fig. 4 and para. [0057]: a first stack of coils, for example, coils 205-220, each of these coils is concentric with respect to a vertical axis to each other and vertically stacked); and
a second stack of coils, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack (Fig. 4 and para. [0057]: a second stack of coils, for example, coils 405-420, each of these coils is concentric with respect to a vertical axis to each other and vertically stacked),
the second stack of coils being nested within the first stack of coils (Fig. 4 and para. [0056]: “Each of coils 405-420 of inductor 115 is disposed within an inner perimeter of coils 205-220, respectively, and further resides within a same conductive layer as each of coils 205 220 respectively,”, i.e., teaching inner coil stack nested within an outer coil stack).
Although Kireev does not specifically note that the first/second stack of coils forming a first/second dome-type arrangement, since claim 5 depends from claim 3 and the dome type arrangement is already provided by Chen, applying the nested stacked coil relationship of Kireev (inner perimeter nesting across stacked layers) to the dome-type coil arrangement of Chen yields the claimed configuration in which a first coil stack forms a first dome arrangement and a second coil stack forms a second dome arrangement nested within the first, as recited in claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Williams’ shielding coils using nested stacked coil sets as taught by Kireev (inner coil(s) disposed within the inner perimeter of outer coil(s), layer-by-layer), because nested coil structures provide a predictable design approach for improving field shaping and local control over a protected region. Such nested stacking is a routine coil-layout optimization consistent with Williams’ goal of establishing a protected zone.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William in view of Seguy.
Regarding Claim 11:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. William does not specifically note that the coiled circuitry has coils arranged in a semicircular arrangement. Seguy teaches the coiled circuitry has coils arranged in a semicircular arrangement (Col. 3, Lls. 25-31: an inductor has two coils and each is of semi-circular shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the shielding coil geometry of Williams using semicircular coils as taught by Seguy, because coil geometry is a known design variable for fitting coils around a protected region while still producing the desired electromagnetic field distribution. A semicircular arrangement is a predictable alternative to other coil shapes for achieving coverage over a target area while accommodating mechanical/packaging constraints, without changing the intended shielding function of Williams.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 12:
Williams teaches the apparatus of claim 10. However, Williams does not specifically note that the coiled circuitry includes a plurality of respective coils having different dimensions and being collectively arranged in a dome-type arrangement. Chen teaches the coiled circuitry includes a plurality of respective coils having different dimensions and being collectively arranged in a dome-type arrangement (Col. 4, Lls. 58-64: discloses that “the coils can be arranged to conform to a dome-shaped dielectric window,” and further teaches that the disclosed principles apply to “domed… three-dimensional configurations having multiple coils with multiple turns.” Because a dome-type multi-coil configuration inherently involves providing multiple coils that span different radii/positions along the dome surface (i.e., coils of differing sizes/dimensions to collectively conform to the dome geometry), the claimed “coils having different dimensions” are also met in Chen).
Chen teaches using electromagnetic circuitry having coiled circuitry including a plurality of respective coils collectively arranged in a dome-type arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the shielding coil geometry of Williams using dome-shaped coils as taught by Chen, because using a plurality of coils of different dimensions arranged in a dome-type geometry is a known way to shape and distribute an electromagnetic field over a target region, and would predictably allow the radiation-deflecting electromatic field of Williams to be formed to cover a desired protected volume (e.g., over and around the target area) while maintaining the same basic operating principles of current-driven coils generating the shielding field.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William in view Chen, and further in view of Kireev.
Regarding Claim 13:
Williams in view of Chen teach the apparatus of claim 12. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the plurality of respective coils are arranged horizontally and stacked vertically relative to others of the coils. Kireev teaches wherein the plurality of respective coils are arranged horizontally and stacked vertically relative to others of the coils (Abstract and para. [0057]: each coil is concentric with respective to a vertical axis to each other coil and coils are vertically stacked).
Kireev teaches planar coils disposed in different conductive layers (i.e., horizontal coils) that are stacked vertically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use vertically stacked planar coils as taught in Kireev in the shielding coil system of Williams (and/or the dome-type arrangement of Chen), because stacking multiple planar coils is a known predictable approach to increase field strength and improve controllability/uniformity of the shielding field over a target area, without materially changing system function.
Regarding Claim 14:
William in view of Chen teach the apparatus of claim 12. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the plurality of respective coils include a first stack of coils forming a first dome-type arrangement, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack; and a second stack of coils forming a second dome-type arrangement, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack, the second stack of coils being nested within the first stack of coils.
Kireev teaches the plurality of respective coils include:
a first stack of coils, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack (Fig. 4 and para. [0057]: a first stack of coils, for example, coils 205-220, each of these coils is concentric with respect to a vertical axis to each other and vertically stacked); and
a second stack of coils, each coil being arranged horizontally and extending in parallel with other ones of the coils in the first stack (Fig. 4 and para. [0057]: a second stack of coils, for example, coils 405-420, each of these coils is concentric with respect to a vertical axis to each other and vertically stacked),
the second stack of coils being nested within the first stack of coils (Fig. 4 and para. [0056]: “Each of coils 405-420 of inductor 115 is disposed within an inner perimeter of coils 205-220, respectively, and further resides within a same conductive layer as each of coils 205 220 respectively,”, i.e., teaching inner coil stack nested within an outer coil stack).
Although Kireev does not specifically note that the first/second stack of coils forming a first/second dome-type arrangement, since claim 14 depends from claim 12 and the dome type arrangement is already provided by Chen, applying the nested stacked coil relationship of Kireev (inner perimeter nesting across stacked layers) to the dome-type coil arrangement of Chen yields the claimed configuration in which a first coil stack forms a first dome arrangement and a second coil stack forms a second dome arrangement nested within the first, as recited in claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Williams’ shielding coils using nested stacked coil sets as taught by Kireev (inner coil(s) disposed within the inner perimeter of outer coil(s), layer-by-layer), because nested coil structures provide a predictable design approach for improving field shaping and local control over a protected region. Such nested stacking is a routine coil-layout optimization consistent with Williams’ goal of establishing a protected zone.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of US 2020/0217070 A1 [hereinafter FANNING].
Regarding Claim 15:
Williams teaches the apparatuses of claim 10. However, Williams does not specifically note that wherein the structure is a building having a base and building structure including a roof extending upward from the base, and wherein the electromagnetic circuitry is coupled to the roof.
FANNING teaches wherein the structure is a building having a base and building structure including a roof extending upward from the base (para. [0033]: a data center having roof panels on its roof, wherein a data center is a building inherently have a base (i.e., ground floor) and its roof extending upward from the base), and
wherein the electromagnetic circuitry is coupled to the roof (paras. [0043-0044]: a hold/release mechanism is installed on the roof panels, the mechanism “may be an electromagnet, which is a type of magnet whose magnetic field is provided by an electric current”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to couple the electromagnetic circuitry of Williams to a building roof as taught by FENNING, because placing electrically-powered electromagnetic components on/at roof structure is a known mounting arrangement, and locating Williams’ field-generating circuitry on a roof provides a predictable elevated placement relative to the building base/target area, yielding the expected result of providing electromagnetic field coverage over the area adjacent the base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881