DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 9, Figure 10J, and Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14-17, 25, 30, 33-43 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that other figures should be included with figure 10J. This is found persuasive only with respect to figure 10K because it appears, based on the disclosure, that figures 10K and 10J show the same structure. This is not found persuasive with respect to other figures because other figures show different structural arrangements than the elected figure 10J. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-3, 5, 14-17, and 33-38 are elected, but are indicated as withdrawn in the claim set. These claims are withdrawn from consideration because they all include structures directed to nonelected species. This is consistent with the claim identifiers already present in the claim set.
In re claim 4, the term “meandering shape” appears to refer to nonelected species shown in figure 5. Elected figure 10J does not disclose a meandering shape. For this reason, claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration by examiner.
In re claim 9, the limitation of one or more metal inputs and/or one or more metal outputs appears to be only present in nonelected figures 14 and 15 according to the specification. For this reason claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 30 is withdrawn from consideration by examiner as being directed to non-elected species. Specifically, the term “co-conductor” appears only in paragraph 72 of the disclosure that is directed to non-elected figure 3b. No co-conductor structure appears to be present in the elected species.
Method claims 39-45 are indicated as elected, however, these claims are directed to nonelected Group II and are thus withdrawn from consideration by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 1, it is not clear what is the difference between the flow channel and the open channel. In the disclosure, these terms appear to be referring to the same structure 29 in the elected species. These terms will be considered as referring to the same structure.
In re claim 1, it is not clear what is the difference between a solder and a metal. The claimed metal appears to be referring to the solder based on the disclosure and claim 25. These terms will be considered as both referring to solder.
In re claim 25, it is not clear if the term “a solder” is referring to the same structure as in claim 1, or a different solder.
In re claim 25, it is not clear if the term “a metal” is referring to the same structure as in claim 1, or a different metal.
In re claim 25, it is not clear what “the metal is a solder comprising a metal” means since the metal appears to refer to itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Labombard et al. (US 2020/0211744).
In re claim 1, Labombard, in figures 1-6, discloses a no-insulation, no-twist (NINT) magnet comprising: a baseplate (205a, 430, 435, 530) having a an open channel (230, 420, 506) provided in a surface thereof; a channel cap (220, 410, 525) disposed over the channel; one or more high temperature superconducting (HTS) tapes (250, 405, 505) disposed in at least a portion of the open channel in the baseplate; and a flow channel (230, 420, 506) having a size and shape and arranged in the NINT magnet such that in response to solder (soldering is discussed throughout the disclosure, see paragrpahs 88 and 96 for example) flowing therethrough, the solder contacts at least some of the one or more HTS tapes; and a metal (solder is disclosed by the prior art and appears to be the claimed metal) disposed in the flow channel of the baseplate channel and surrounding the one or more HTS tapes disposed in the channel (paragraph 15 describes soldering a cap to the tape, thus, the solder surrounds the tape stack at least on one side; the tape stack is separately soldered itself, thereby including solder surrounding the tape in other areas). With respect to the “solder flowing” limitation, this limitation is not given weight because it appears to be a product by process limitation.
In re claim 12, Labombard, in figures 1-6, discloses that the metal is further comprising a co-wind material disposed in the open channel of the baseplate (the metal, solder is disposed in the channel surrounding the tapes) proximate the one or more HTS tapes with the co-wind material having a size and shape selected such that the flow channel for solder flow path is not obstructed by placement of the one or more HTS tapes in the channel (this is inherent function for the solder to be able to be positioned within the channel).
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labombard et al. (US 2020/0211744) in view of Koch (US 4333228).
In re claim 25, Labombard teaches the solder but does not teach the claimed melting point or composition. Koch however, teaches a solder having a melting point of less than 200°C (this is discussed in line 13 of column 4), wherein at least 50 of the metal is lead (Pb) and/or tin (Sn) (PbSn solder is discussed in line 13 of column 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the solder as disclosed by Koch in the device of Labombard to allow for soldering the coil without excessively high temperatures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights