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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 14-15, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden et al. (US 3612742 A) and in further view of Kroliczek et al. (US 20050252643 A1)
Regarding Claim 1 – Snowden teaches a superconducting cable system comprising at least one liquid permeable supply duct (Figs 1-2; 18); a supply of cryogenic fluid within a lumen of the at least one supply duct (Fig 2; conduit 18 (contains coolant)); at least one superconductor extending longitudinally of the at least one supply duct (Fig 3; 66 and 68) and in thermal communication with the cryogenic fluid (Fig 2; coolant in conduit 18 and cable(s) 47); at least one vapour return duct (Fig 2; return helium conduit 52).
Snowden does not explicitly disclose an evaporation enabling medium disposed between the at least one supply duct and the at least one vapour return duct and arranged to affect a phase change of the cryogen therein through the latent heat of vaporization.
Kroliczek teaches an evaporation enabling medium disposed between the at least one supply duct and the at least one vapour return duct and arranged to affect a phase change of the cryogen therein through the latent heat of vaporization (Kroliczek [Abstract] states “The evaporator includes a liquid inlet, a vapor outlet, and a capillary wick having a first surface adjacent the liquid inlet and a second surface adjacent the vapor outlet” and Kroliczek [0006] states “Heat is absorbed by evaporation… removed by condensation… This process makes use of a fluid's latent heat of vaporization/condensation” Also confirms cryogens suitable “cryogenic fluids have been found to be suitable”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Snowden with an evaporation enabling medium disposed between the at least one supply duct and the at least one vapour return duct and arranged to affect a phase change of the cryogen therein through the latent heat of vaporization as taught by Kroliczek because Kroliczek [0006] states “This process makes use of a fluid's latent heat of vaporization/condensation, which permits the transfer of relatively large quantities of heat with small amounts of fluid and negligible temperature drops. A variety of fluids including ammonia, water, freons, liquid metals, and cryogenic fluids have been found to be suitable for LHP systems.”
Regarding Claim 2 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the evaporation enabling medium has permeability in the range of between 10−12 and 10−20 m2 (Kroliczek; Table 1 lists Permeability 10−10 and 10−16 m2).
Regarding Claim 3 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the evaporation enabling medium comprises a capillary structure, a wick and/or a porous medium (Kroliczek [Abstract] states “a capillary wick having a first surface adjacent the liquid inlet and a second surface adjacent the vapor outlet”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 3 in which the evaporation enabling medium has porosity in the range of between 20% and 90%, more preferably between 40% and 90% and most preferably between 60% and 90% (Kroliczek; Table 1 lists Porosity 30% to 90% void volume).
Regarding Claim 5 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 3 in which the evaporation enabling medium has a pore size in the range of between 0.01 μm and 10 μm (Kroliczek [0140] states “the optimum wick pore size… is a 6 micron wick”).
Regarding Claim 6 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the evaporation enabling medium comprises a metallic and/or a polymer or polymer composite material (Kroliczek [0083] states “materials, including non-metallic wicks (e.g., polymeric, ceramic) and metal wicks”).
Regarding Claim 7 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the evaporation enabling medium comprises a layered or laminated structure (Kroliczek [0099] states “a plate/wick assembly… formed by… the wick 108 sandwiched between, and bonded to, the plates 102, 104”).
Regarding Claim 9 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the evaporation enabling medium comprises a permeable substrate (Kroliczek [0080] states “Yet another aspect… is high permeability for low pressure drop across the wick”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the at least one superconductor is in retained within a lumen of the at least one supply duct (Fig 2; 18; superconducting cable retained within the lumen of conduit 18).
Regarding Claim 14 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the at least one supply duct is surrounded by the evaporation enabling medium (Kroliczek [0007] states “a wick 4 has a central flow channel 2 and is surrounded… by… peripheral flow channels 6”).
Regarding Claim 15 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1 in which the at least one superconductor, at least one supply duct, evaporation enabling medium and at least one vapour return duct are concentrically arranged (Snowden teaches “inner casing… conduit 18… is coaxial with the outer casing 14” and “Between the heat shield 26 and the conduit 18 is a return helium conduit 52”; Snowden further teaches “The illustrated conductors 66 and 68 are… coaxial with one another”).
Regarding Claim 22 – Snowden teaches a cryogen conduit comprising at least one liquid permeable supply duct (Figs 1-2; 18); a supply of cryogenic fluid within a lumen of the at least one supply duct (Fig 2; conduit 18 (contains coolant)); at least one vapour return duct (Fig 2; return helium conduit 52).
Snowden does not explicitly disclose an evaporation enabling medium disposed between the at least one supply duct and the at least one vapour return duct and arranged to affect a phase change of at least a portion of the cryogen therein through the latent heat of vaporization.
Kroliczek teaches an evaporation enabling medium disposed between the at least one supply duct and the at least one vapour return duct and arranged to affect a phase change of at least a portion of the cryogen therein through the latent heat of vaporization (Kroliczek [Abstract] states “The evaporator includes a liquid inlet, a vapor outlet, and a capillary wick having a first surface adjacent the liquid inlet and a second surface adjacent the vapor outlet” and Kroliczek [0006] states “Heat is absorbed by evaporation… removed by condensation… This process makes use of a fluid's latent heat of vaporization/condensation” Also confirms cryogens suitable “cryogenic fluids have been found to be suitable”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Snowden with an evaporation enabling medium disposed between the at least one supply duct and the at least one vapour return duct and arranged to affect a phase change of at least a portion of the cryogen therein through the latent heat of vaporization as taught by Kroliczek because Kroliczek [0006] states “This process makes use of a fluid's latent heat of vaporization/condensation, which permits the transfer of relatively large quantities of heat with small amounts of fluid and negligible temperature drops. A variety of fluids including ammonia, water, freons, liquid metals, and cryogenic fluids have been found to be suitable for LHP systems.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden et al. (US 3612742 A) in view of Kroliczek et al. (US 20050252643 A1) and in further view of Willen et al. (US 8442605 B2)
Regarding Claim 8 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose in which the evaporation enabling medium comprises open celled foam.
Willen teaches the evaporation enabling medium comprises open celled foam (Willen [Claim 8] states “the porous volume being a foamed open pored polymer”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Snowden in view of Kroliczek with the evaporation enabling medium comprises open celled foam as taught by Willen to get the benefit of additional cooling effect, i.e., Willen expressly teaches an evaporation enabling foam medium suitable for phase-change cooling.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden et al. (US 3612742 A) in view of Kroliczek et al. (US 20050252643 A1) and in further view of Alekseev (US 20220028583 A1)
Regarding Claim 11 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a pressure differential generator operable to establish a pressure differential between the at least one supply duct and the at least on vapour return duct in the range of between 1 bar and 25 bar.
Alekseev teaches a pressure differential generator operable to establish a pressure differential between the at least one supply duct and the at least on vapour return duct in the range of between 1 bar and 25 bar (Figs 1-2; circulating pump 20; Alekseev [0008-0009, 0043]).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Snowden in view of Kroliczek with a pressure differential generator operable to establish a pressure differential between the at least one supply duct and the at least on vapour return duct in the range of between 1 bar and 25 bar as taught by Alekseev because Alekseev [0009] states “The pressure in the liquid nitrogen cycle formed… selected such that no vapor bubbles may form” and further teaches selecting “5 to 20 bar” downstream of the circulation pump.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden et al. (US 3612742 A) in view of Kroliczek et al. (US 20050252643 A1) and Alekseev (US 20220028583 A1) and in further view of Willen et al. (US 8442605 B2)
Regarding Claim 13 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek and Alekseev teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose in which the pressure differential generator is operable to modulate the pressure differential.
Willen teaches the pressure differential generator is operable to modulate the pressure differential (Willen [Claim 17] states “said escape opening being manually, computer controlled or automatically adjustable”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Snowden in view of Kroliczek and Alekseev with the pressure differential generator is operable to modulate the pressure differential as taught by Willen to get the benefit of controllably regulating pressure conditions in the cryogenic circuit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden et al. (US 3612742 A) in view of Kroliczek et al. (US 20050252643 A1) and in further view of Staines (US 20180315530 A1)
Regarding Claim 13 – Snowden in view of Kroliczek teaches a superconducting cable system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a pressure release system operable to release pressure from within the at least one vapour return duct.
Staines teaches a pressure release system operable to release pressure from within the at least one vapour return duct (Staines [0018] states “A pressure relief valve 22 prevents over-pressuring of the cryogenic fluid circuit 18 by automatically relieving pressure”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Snowden in view of Kroliczek with a pressure release system operable to release pressure from within the at least one vapour return duct as taught by Staines to get the benefit of preventing over-pressuring of the cryogenic circuit (Staines [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/ADITYA SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights