DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election of Invention I without traverse in the Reply filed 31 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-24 are pending. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-20. Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s). The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
It is unclear what constitutes a “positive component” and a “negative component”. It is unclear whether positive and negative refer to: (1) electrical charge; (2) opposite positioning alignment/direction; or (3) something else.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rebut (ITER: the first experimental fusion reactor, Fusion Engineering and Design 30 (1995) 85-118).
Claims 1-4, 8-13, 17-20
Rebut (cited via IDS) teaches a tokamak comprising toroidal field (TF) coils (e.g., sections 4.5 and 4.5.1). A first TF coil has first teeth on a side of an inner leg (e.g., Figure 19; left coil provided with teeth-like structures on both sides, which includes the side adjacent the right coil). The first teeth extend along a direction having a component in a radial direction of the tokamak (e.g., Figure 19; all teeth shown in the Figure have a component in the radial direction). A second TF coil has second teeth on a side of a second inner leg (e.g., Figure 19; right coil provided with the same teeth structures on both sides). The first teeth are configured to mechanically engage with the second teeth (e.g., Figure 19; and pages 104 and 109). Note the similar application of Rebut with regard to the claims in the corresponding PCT application.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15
Figure 19 case structures implicitly made of steel, and teeth are made from a surface of the case.
Claims 7 and 16
Rounded shape is shown in Figure 19.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kostenko (Design Features of the Toroidal Field & Central Solenoid Magnet Systems for the International Thermonuclear Test Reactor (1994) 1608-1612).
Claims 1-4, 8-13, 17-20
Kostenko (cited via IDS) teaches a tokamak comprising toroidal field (TF) coils (e.g., section II). A first TF coil has first teeth on a side of an inner leg (e.g., Figure 4; left coil provided with teeth-like structures on both sides, which includes the side adjacent the right coil). The first teeth extend along a direction having a component in a radial direction of the tokamak (e.g., Figure 4; all teeth shown in the Figure have a component in the radial direction). A second TF coil has second teeth on a side of a second inner leg (e.g., Figure 14; right coil provided with the same teeth structures on both sides). The first teeth are configured to mechanically engage with the second teeth (e.g., Figure 4 shows engaged coils). Note the similar application of Kostenko with regard to the claims in the corresponding PCT application.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15
Figure 4 case structures implicitly made of steel, and teeth are made from a surface of the case.
Claims 7 and 16
Rounded shape is shown in Figure 4.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the sentence “The corresponds to an interface between the TF coil and a second TF coil” is unclear. Words appear to be missing. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is not directed to the elected invention. Also, it is unclear how ”Handling of forces on tokamak toroidal field coils” relates to the structure of a toroidal field coil for a tokamak (as recited in claim 1).
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights