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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwartz et al. (US 2017/0179364 A1 – hereafter “Schwartz”).
As per claim 1 Schwartz teaches the following: A high temperature superconductor (HTS) cable (see para [0017]), comprising:
at least one HTS tape stack extending along a length of the HTS cable (see para [0017]); and at least one optical fiber extending along the HTS cable (see para [0029] - [0034]), the at least one optical fiber having a plurality of gratings spaced apart from one another along the length of the HTS cable (see para [0022]) to detect a quench of the at least one HTS tape stack (see para [0017]).
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.
Claims 2 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Daibo (WO 2011/129245 A1 – hereafter “Daibo”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 1, wherein the HTS cable comprises a jacket around the at least one HTS tape stack.”
Schwartz does not teach the HTS cable comprises a jacket around the at least one HTS tape stack.
However, Daibo teaches a superconducting wire configured by laminating a bed layer, an intermediate layer and a superconducting layer on a tape-like base material (see First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “The superconducting wire 1A of the present embodiment”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Daibo to comprise a jacket around the HTS tape stack in order to provide structural encapsulation and protection of the HTS tape stack during handling and operation.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 2, wherein the jacket comprises copper.” Schwartz does not teach the jacket placed around the HTS comprises copper.
However, Daibo teaches a metal stabilizing layer (19) that can be comprised of copper or copper alloy (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “The metal material constituting the metal stabilizing layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Daibo to form the jacket surrounding the HTS tape stack from copper in order to provide a jacket material with suitable electrical and thermal conductivity characteristics.
Regrading claim 4, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 2, further comprising at least one groove in the jacket, wherein the at least one optical fiber is disposed within the at least one groove.”
Schwartz teaches the HTS cable of claim 2, but fails to teach a groove in the jacket, in which the optical fiber is disposed within the groove.
Daibo however teaches a metal stabilizing layer having a groove formed along the longitudinal direction of the superconducting wire (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “In the upper part (upper layer part) of the metal stabilization layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Daibo in order to provide a jacket structure that physically retains the optical fiber in a defined channel formed in the jacket for protection and routing of the optical fiber along the HTS cable.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 4, wherein the at least one groove is at an exterior surface of the jacket.”
Schwartz teaches the HTS cable of claim 4, but fails to teach a groove that is at the exterior surface of the jacket.
Daibo however teaches an upper layer part of the stabilizing layer that includes grooves formed at the outer surface of the stabilizing layer (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “In the upper part (upper layer part) of the metal stabilization layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Daibo to locate the fiber receiving groove at an exterior surface of the jacket to facilitate installation, access, and maintenance of the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 4, further comprising an adhesive in the at least one groove, securing the at least one optical fiber in the at least one groove.”
Schwartz teaches the HTS cable of claim 4, but fails to teach an adhesive in the groove, securing the optical fiber in the groove.
Daibo however teaches the use of adhesives and bonding agents within the jacket structure to secure embedded components (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “In the upper part (upper layer part) of the metal stabilization layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Daibo to secure the optical fiber within the jacket groove using an adhesive to prevent movement of the optical fiber during handling and operation of the HTS cable.
Claims 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Scurti (WO 2019/027964 A1 – hereafter “Scurti”).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 1, further comprising a former, wherein the at least one HTS tape stack is within a groove in the former.”
Schwartz teaches the HTS cable of claim 1, but fails to teach a former with a HTS tape stack, that is within a groove in the former.
However, Scurti teaches round core (109) with grooves (113) at the surface of the core with layers of HTS tape architectures (106) wound on the round core (see para [0029] – [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Scurti to incorporate a former having a groove configured to receive an HTS tape stack in order to arrange the HTS tape stack within the former in the manner taught by Scurti.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 7, wherein the former comprises copper.”
Schwartz teaches the HTS cable of claim 7, but fails to teach that the former comprises copper.
However, Scurti teaches the core (109) can be comprised of copper or any type of resistive solid material that is strong and ductile (see para [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Scurti to substitute copper for the former material in order to employ a former material disclosed by Scurti for supporting HTS tape architectures.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 1, wherein the plurality of gratings are fiber Bragg gratings.
Schwartz teaches the HTS cable of claim 1, but fails to teach the plurality of gratings are fiber Bragg gratings.
However, Scurti teaches a small Bragg grating is inscribed at one or more locations along the length of the fiber (see para [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Scurti to employ fiber Bragg gratings along the optical fiber in order to configure the optical fiber with gratings of the type expressly disclosed by Scurti.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Omichi et al. (US 9,488,606 – hereafter “Omichi”).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The HTS cable of claim 1, wherein gratings of the plurality of gratings are spaced apart from one another by a distance suitable for detecting quench within a short enough time period that current within the HTS cable can be reduced before damage to the HTS cable occurs.”
Schwartz in view of Omichi teaches the HTS cable of claim 1, but fails to teach gratings of the plurality of gratings are spaced apart from one another by a distance suitable for detecting quench within a short enough time period that current within the HTS cable can be reduced before damage to the HTS cable occurs.
However, Omichi teaches a plurality of fiber Bragg gratings disposed at spaced locations along an optical fiber, wherein temperature changes associated with a non-superconducting transition are detected at different positions along the superconducting wire to identify quench propagation (see col. 13, lines 59 – 67; col. 4, lines 1 – 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Omichi to incorporate spaced fiber Bragg gratings along the HTS cable in order to enable detection of a quench based on temperature changes at multiple locations along the cable within a time frame sufficient to permit reduction of current prior to damage.
Claims 28 - 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Badcock et al. (CN 112368554 A – hereafter “Badcock”).
As per claim 28, the Schwartz teaches:
A quench detection system for a high temperature superconductor (HTS) cable having at least one HTS tape stack extending along a length of the HTS cable, the quench detection system comprising: at least one optical fiber extending along the HTS cable, the at least one optical fiber having a plurality of gratings spaced apart from one another along the length of the least one optical fiber (see para [0022], [0025] and [0030]).
However, Schwartz does not teach a light source configured to illuminate an optical fiber; an optical detector configured to detect light from an optical fiber; and circuitry configured to sense a temperature at one or more of the plurality of gratings using light detected by the optical detector.
Badcock teaches an incident light source (309) for providing incident light to an upstream end of an optical fiber (302), a wavelength spectrum integrator (313) for detecting the incident light from the optical fiber, and a processor (315) configured to analyze the detected reflected spectrum to determine when a portion of the optical fiber Bragg grating is subjected to temperature and/or strain change (see Contents of Invention, 1st paragraph; see also Specific implementation examples, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock to include an incident light source, an optical detector, and processing circuitry, in order to provide a complete optical fiber interrogation system capable of illuminating the optical fiber, detecting light reflected from the plurality of gratings, and processing the detected light to determine temperature changes for quench detection.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 28 used in at least one of: a fusion energy system, a magnetic resonance imaging system, a nuclear magnetic resonance system, a motor, a power transmission system, or a particle accelerator.”
Schwartz does not specify that the quench detection system of claim 28 is used in at least one of: a fusion energy system, a magnetic resonance imaging system, a nuclear magnetic resonance system, a motor, a power transmission system, or a particle accelerator.
Badcock teaches the quench detection system can be used in a motor/generator, medical applications, radiological devices, transformers and windings (See Actual Applications/Advantages, paragraph starting with “In addition to the quench detection in the HTS application”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock to configure the quench detection system for use in a motor system, in order to apply the disclosed quench detection functionality to HTS components used in motor and generator environments as taught by Badcock.
7. Claims 48 – 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Daibo.
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 28, wherein the HTS cable comprises a jacket around the at least one HTS tape stack.”
Similarly, to claim 2, Schwartz in view of Badcock does not teach the HTS cable comprises a jacket around the at least one HTS tape stack.
However, Daibo teaches a superconducting wire configured by laminating a bed layer, an intermediate layer and a superconducting layer on a tape-like base material (see First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “The superconducting wire 1A of the present embodiment”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Daibo to comprise a jacket around the HTS tape stack in order to provide structural encapsulation and protection of the HTS tape stack during handling and operation.
Regarding claim 49, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 48, wherein the jacket comprises copper.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock does not teach the jacket placed around the HTS comprises copper.
However, Daibo teaches a metal stabilizing layer (19) that can be comprised of copper or copper alloy (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “The metal material constituting the metal stabilizing layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Daibo to form the jacket surrounding the HTS tape stack from copper in order to provide a jacket material with suitable electrical and thermal conductivity characteristics.
Regrading claim 50, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 48, further comprising at least one groove in the jacket, wherein the at least one optical fiber is disposed within the at least one groove.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock, but fails to teach a groove in the jacket, in which the optical fiber is disposed within the groove.
Daibo however teaches a metal stabilizing layer having a groove formed along the longitudinal direction of the superconducting wire (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “In the upper part (upper layer part) of the metal stabilization layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Daibo in order to provide a jacket structure that physically retains the optical fiber in a defined channel formed in the jacket for protection and routing of the optical fiber along the HTS cable.
Regarding claim 51, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 50, wherein the at least one groove is at an exterior surface of the jacket.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock, but fails to teach a groove that is at the exterior surface of the jacket.
Daibo however teaches an upper layer part of the stabilizing layer that includes grooves formed at the outer surface of the stabilizing layer (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “In the upper part (upper layer part) of the metal stabilization layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Daibo to locate the fiber receiving groove at an exterior surface of the jacket to facilitate installation, access, and maintenance of the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 52, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 51, further comprising an adhesive in the at least one groove, securing the at least one optical fiber in the at least one groove.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock fails to teach an adhesive in the groove, securing the optical fiber in the groove.
Daibo however teaches the use of adhesives and bonding agents within the jacket structure to secure embedded components (see Detailed Description, First Embodiment, paragraph starting with “In the upper part (upper layer part) of the metal stabilization layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Daibo to secure the optical fiber within the jacket groove using an adhesive to prevent movement of the optical fiber during handling and operation of the HTS cable.
8. Claims 53 – 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view Badcock in further view of Scurti.
Regarding claim 53, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 28, further comprising a former, wherein the at least one HTS tape stack is within a groove in the former.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock but fails to teach a former with a HTS tape stack, that is within a groove in the former.
However, Scurti teaches round core (109) with grooves (113) at the surface of the core with layers of HTS tape architectures (106) wound on the round core (see para [0029] – [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Scurti to incorporate a former having a groove configured to receive an HTS tape stack in order to arrange the HTS tape stack within the former in the manner taught by Scurti.
Regarding claim 54, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 28, wherein the plurality of gratings are fiber Bragg gratings.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock fails to teach the plurality of gratings are fiber Bragg gratings.
However, Scurti teaches a small Bragg grating is inscribed at one or more locations along the length of the fiber (see para [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Scurti to employ fiber Bragg gratings along the optical fiber in order to configure the optical fiber with gratings of the type expressly disclosed by Scurti.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in view of Badcock and in further view of Omichi.
Regarding claim 55, the claim recites “The quench detection system of claim 28, wherein gratings of the plurality of gratings are spaced apart from one another by a distance suitable for detecting quench within a short enough time period that current within the HTS cable can be reduced before damage to the HTS cable occurs.”
Schwartz in view of Badcock fails to teach gratings of the plurality of gratings are spaced apart from one another by a distance suitable for detecting quench within a short enough time period that current within the HTS cable can be reduced before damage to the HTS cable occurs.
However, Omichi teaches a plurality of fiber Bragg gratings disposed at spaced locations along an optical fiber, wherein temperature changes associated with a non-superconducting transition are detected at different positions along the superconducting wire to identify quench propagation (see col. 13, lines 59 – 67; col. 4, lines 1 – 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Schwartz in view of Badcock in further view of Omichi to incorporate spaced fiber Bragg gratings along the HTS cable in order to enable detection of a quench based on temperature changes at multiple locations along the cable within a time frame sufficient to permit reduction of current prior to damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855