2DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 8.31.26. Claims 1-2,4-9 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8.31.26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1 which will be examined below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments to which the Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: Applicant respectfully submits the superconducting winding of the claimed embodiment includes a plurality of coil-shaped spliceless loop members formed from a sheet-like superconducting material. Each spliceless loop member is formed by forming a notched part in a sheet-like member, processing the sheet-like member into a loop shape, and further, as necessary, laminating a plurality of such sheet-like members. In contrast, the superconducting coil 10 of SHINZATO is a superconducting wire helically wound around the rotor core 13, and is an ordinary wound coil formed by winding a superconducting wire. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits the superconducting coil 10 described in SHINZATO differs, at least in its formation method and completed structure, from the claimed "each of the plurality of spliceless loop members comprises one or more discrete sheet-like members, each having a notched part."
Examiner Response 1: Examiner agrees that Shinzato is not sufficient to read on above new limitations, specifically “discrete sheet-like members, each having a notched part” in light of amendments and arguments.
Applicant Argument 2: That is, the rotor of SHINZATO is a DC-excited rotor in which an electric current is supplied from an external source to the helically wound superconducting coil to generate magnetism in the rotor core. The rotor of SHINZATO does not trap a magnetic flux from a rotating magnetic field of the stator; rather, it generates its own magnetic field by means of the externally supplied current.
Examiner Response 2: Examiner agrees that Shinzato cannot be combined with Nakamura to read on amendments as Shinzato rotor is externally supplied with power.
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 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.
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.
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 1-2,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawardi (US20030052554A1) in view of Bromberg et al (US11937519B1), hereinafter Bromberg.
Regarding Claim 1, Mawardi discloses (Figs 2-4) a superconducting rotating machine (Fig 2), comprising:
a stator (28) that has a tubular stator core (Fig 3) and a stator winding (Para 0036) wound around the stator core, and that generates a rotating magnetic field [Para 0041]; and
a superconducting rotor (26) that is rotatably held by the rotating magnetic field of the stator and that has a superconducting winding (40,36,38) including a plurality of loop members made of a superconducting material (46), and a rotor iron core (Para 0017),
wherein the superconducting rotor changes from a magnetic shielding state to a magnetic flux trapping state via a magnetic flux flow state [Para 0044 discloses how current is trapped],
wherein the superconducting rotor (26) is not connected (Fig 2)to an external power source and an electric current is induced [0044]in the superconducting winding (40,36,38) of the superconducting rotor by the rotating magnetic field of the stator(28).
Mawardi does not explicitly disclose coil shaped spliceless loop members made of super conducting material including a slot for housing the spliceless loop members wherein each of the plurality of spliceless loop members comprises one or more discrete sheet-like members, each having a notched part.
Bromberg discloses (Figs 2A,2B,3A,16,19) coil shaped spliceless loop members (302-308) made of super conducting material [Col 5, Line 50] including a slot (Fig 16, 1501 can be slot) for housing the spliceless loop members (1544) wherein each of the plurality of spliceless loop members comprises one or more discrete sheet-like members (Fig 3A, 302-308), each having a notched part (206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi with coil shaped spliceless loop members structure as taught by Bromberg in order to reduce joint electrical resistance and reduce space needed to house winding leading to ability to induce more current even at higher critical temperatures.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
406
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
480
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
346
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
526
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
438
764
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
540
598
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mawardi in view of Bromberg discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Mawardi in view of Bromberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the superconducting winding includes a plurality of electrically separated spliceless loop members .
Bromberg further discloses (Fig 3A) wherein the superconducting winding (300) includes a plurality of electrically separated spliceless loop members (302-308).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi in view of Bromberg with coil shaped electrically separated spliceless loop members structure as further taught by Bromberg in order to maximize current in each loop, thereby maximizing amount of magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 9, Mawardi in view of Bromberg discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Mawardi in view of Bromberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the spliceless loop members do not include any solder joint .
Bromberg further discloses (Fig 3A) wherein the spliceless loop members do not include any solder joint [Col 5, Lines 61-67 discloses superconductive shunt].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi in view of Bromberg with solderless coil shaped spliceless loop members structure as further taught by Bromberg in order to reduce joint electrical resistance leading to ability to induce more current even at higher critical temperatures, thereby creating more magnetic field.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawardi in view of Bromberg and Masson (US20070052304A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Mawardi in view of Bromberg discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Mawardi in view of Bromberg a does not explicitly disclose a ship including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Masson discloses [0005]a ship including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi in view of Bromberg with application in a ship as taught by Masson in order to propel the ship.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawardi in view of Bromberg and Iwakuma (US20220216779A1 PCT Filing date 4.24.20)
Regarding Claim 6, Mawardi in view of Bromberg discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Mawardi in view of Bromberg does not explicitly disclose an automobile including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Iwakuma discloses [0009]an automobile including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi in view of Bromberg with application in automobile as taught by Iwakuma in order to propel the automobile.
Regarding Claim 7, Mawardi in view of Bromberg discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Mawardi in view of Bromberg does not explicitly disclose an aircraft including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Iwakuma discloses [0069]an aircraft including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi in view of Bromberg with application in automobile as taught by Iwakuma in order to propel the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 8, Mawardi in view of Bromberg discloses the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1. Mawardi in view of Bromberg does not explicitly disclose a pump including the superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1.
Iwakuma discloses [0108]a pump including the superconducting rotating machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed superconducting rotating machine of Mawardi in view of Bromberg with application in pump as taught by Iwakuma in order to power the pump.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 recites “The superconducting rotating machine according to claim 1, wherein the spliceless loop members are housed in the slot so as come into contact with at least a part of another one of the spliceless loop members”. Mawardi does not disclose “spliceless loop members”. Bromberg discloses “spliceless loop members” in Fig 3A but does not disclose it in a slot making contact with another “spliceless loop members” similar to Fig 5D of instant invention. Therefore claim 4 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights