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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 1/2/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that Park does not discuss a separate support cylinder being arranged inside of a magnetic cylinder that includes several orifices disposed in the support cylinder that only open at an outer surface of the support cylinder towards the magnetic cylinder as mentioned in the Office Action.
Park discusses a stator core 110 which includes a back yoke 111 of a cylindrical shape that houses a plurality of support teeth 113 and stator coils 130 which are housed within slots 115. Although Park mentions that the back yoke 111 is made of a plurality of electrical sheets and the support teeth 113 are a nonmagnetic material, there is no indication or description that there are separate cylinder structures separating the ferromagnetic portion from the nonmagnetic portion, nor that the slots 115 only open towards the back yoke 111. It appears at least that the slots 115 open at both ends of the teeth 113, exposing the slots 115 to both the back yoke 111 and the vacuum housing 11. Accordingly, it is therefore impossible for the orifice (e.g., the slot 115) to only be opened at an outer surface of the teeth 113 since the slot 115, and therefore the coil 130, extends entirely through the support teeth 113. Therefore, Park fails to teach or suggest a stator including a magnetic cylinder made of a ferromagnetic material and a support cylinder made of a nonmagnetic material fitted and fastened inside of the magnetic cylinder, wherein the support cylinder incudes several orifices that are angularly and regularly distributed around the rotor in pairs and open only at an outer surface of the support cylinder towards the magnetic cylinder, as set forth in claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because Park (KR 20140134794 A) shows in FIG. 2-3 the back yoke 111 a separate part from the teeth 113. Park says the teeth 113 are disposed on an inner circumferential surface of the back yoke 111 and made of a different material. The teeth 113 extend around the entire back yoke 111 in the circumferential direction C and are therefore a cylinder 113 (page 4). The teeth 113 have a proximal end portion 113a that delineate the end of the teeth 113 and the inner circumference of the back yoke 111 (page 5). There is no suggestion in the Figures or description that the back yoke 111 and the teeth 113 are monolithic, instead Park teaches 111 and 113 are separate elements placed in contact with each other.
Regarding the slots 115, Park shows (FIG. 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
811
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The slots 115 are closed by wedges W. Therefore Park shows the orifices 115 open only at an outer surface of the support cylinder 113 towards the magnetic cylinder 111 as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the Applicant argued that it appears that the wire 131 of Park is wound around the coil 130 in a circumferential direction according to FIG. 4. There is no discussion of winding a material (e.g., a wire or a superconducting material) in a radial direction (e.g., a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal X-axis along a radius of the rotor). As such, Park also fails to teach or suggest wherein each coil is made up of a strip of a superconducting material that is wound about an overall radial winding axis with respect to the longitudinal axis, as set forth in claim 3.
This argument is not persuasive because the recitation of “a strip of a superconducting material that is wound about an overall radial winding axis with respect to the longitudinal axis” in claim 3 is broad and shown by the wire 131 that is superconducting shown in FIG. 4. The strip-shaped wire 131 is wound to form the coil 130 (page 6) and the wire 131 intersects a radial axis of the device 1 shown by Park.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20140134794 A) in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2012/0161557 A1, hereinafter Mizutani of record).
As to claim 1, Park shows (FIG. 1-4) A superconducting motor 1 comprising:
a rotor 10, with a rotor core 15, rotatable about a longitudinal axis X,
a stator 100 disposed outside the rotor 10 and comprising a support cylinder 113 and a magnetic cylinder 111, wherein the support cylinder 113 is fitted and fastened in the magnetic cylinder 111, wherein the magnetic cylinder 111 is made of a ferromagnetic material, wherein the support cylinder 113 is made of a non-magnetic and electrically insulating material, wherein the support cylinder 113 includes several orifices 115 that are angularly and regularly distributed around the rotor 10 in pairs and open only at an outer surface of the support cylinder 113 towards the magnetic cylinder 111, wherein, for each orifice 115, the magnetic cylinder 111 has a cutout 153 inside the magnetic cylinder 111 and facing said orifice 115,
for each pair of orifices 115, a coil 130 made of a superconducting material and that is wound by being accommodated in the orifices 115 of the pair, and
for each cutout 153, a cooling system 155 arranged in said cutout 153 and intended to cool that portion of the coil 130 which is accommodated in the orifice 115 corresponding to the cutout 153 (teeth 113 formed of non-magnetic insulating resin material page 4:21-24; back yoke 111 electromagnetic page 4:4-8; cutout FIG. 4; wire 131 is superconducting page 6:4-6; cooling pipe 155 page 6:24-28).
Park does not show the rotor core bearing a plurality of permanent magnets.
Mizutani shows (FIG. 1) the rotor core 24 bearing a plurality of permanent magnets 26 (para[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor of Park to have the rotor core 15 bearing a plurality of permanent magnets 26 as taught by Mizutani, for the advantageous benefit of providing a permanent rotating magnetic field.
As to claim 2/1, Park in view of Mizutani was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Park further shows (FIG. 3) each orifice 115 opens at an outer surface of the support cylinder 111.
As to claim 3/1, Park in view of Mizutani was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Park further shows (FIG. 3) each coil 130 is made up of a strip of a superconducting material 131 that is wound about an overall radial winding axis with respect to the longitudinal axis X (wire 131 is superconducting page 6:4-9).
As to claim 4/1, Park in view of Mizutani was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Park further shows (FIG. 3,4) each cooling system is made up of a plurality of tubes 155 disposed in the corresponding cutout 153, and wherein the tubes 155 extend over a length of the magnetic cylinder 111 and are intended to be fluidically connected to a source of a refrigerant fluid (cooling pipe 155 circulation circuit page 6:24-28).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20140134794 A) in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2012/0161557 A1, hereinafter Mizutani of record) and Oswald et al. (US 2020/0076260 A1, hereinafter Oswald).
As to claim 5/4/1, Park in view of Mizutani was discussed above with respect to claim 4 except for the tubes are made of metal.
Oswald shows the cooling pipes are made of metal (para[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubes of Park in view of Mizutani to have the tubes are made of metal as taught by Oswald, for the advantageous benefit of providing tubes to have a heat expansion similar to that of superconductive materials such that the tubes can be placed near the coils 130 for sufficient heat transport and good thermal connection as taught by Oswald (para[0018]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights