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 .
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(s) 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daibo (US 2014/0357495 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Daibo (US 2014/0357495 A1) discloses a superconducting wire (Fig 2) comprising: a substrate (12; see Fig 2 showing 12 is at a lower portion of the wire 10B and has layers atop, thus 12 can be construed as a substrate) including a first surface (surface of 12 contacting lower surface of 1) and a second surface (outer surface of 12 at the bottom of Fig 2 contacting 7B) opposite to the first surface; and a superconducting layer (3; [0053]) facing the first surface, the second surface (outer surface of 12) having an arithmetic average roughness larger than 0.02 μm ([0088] “80 nm or less” “30 to 77 nm”), the second surface having a maximum height roughness smaller than 5 μm ([0087-0088] “890 nm or less” “189 to 887 nm”).
Regarding Claim 8, Daibo further discloses the superconducting wire (Fig 2) according to claim 1, further comprising an insulating resin layer (7B; [0080]), wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and the second surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than ([0087-0088] “890 nm or less” “189 to 887 nm”) 0.5 times a thickness ([0069] “12 um or more”) of the insulating resin layer (7B) in a direction perpendicular to the second surface.
Regarding Claim 11, Daibo further discloses of a superconducting device ([0133]) comprising the superconducting wire ([0133]) according to claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikura (JP 2012252825 A; English Machine Translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujikura (JP 2012252825 A; English Machine Translation provided by Applicant) discloses a superconducting wire (Fig 1) comprising: a substrate (1; see Fig 1 showing 1 is at a lower portion of the wire and has layers atop, thus 1 can be construed as a substrate) including a first surface (at 1A) and a second surface (at 1B) opposite to the first surface; and a superconducting layer (3; [0015]) facing the first surface, the second surface (at 1B) having an arithmetic average roughness larger than 0.02 μm ([0015,0020]).
Fujikura does not explicitly disclose the second surface having a maximum height roughness smaller than 5 μm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as disclosed by Fujikura, wherein the second surface having a maximum height roughness smaller than 5 μm, in order to improve adhesion and anchor effect (Fujikura, [0017]), in order to form a flatter wire for future assemblies, allow for better control of thicknesses of layers and the wire, and better control overall dimensions of the wire for fitting the wire into future assembled spaces, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 7, [0034-0036], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 2, Fujikura teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura further teaches the superconducting wire (Fig 1) according to claim 1, wherein the second surface (at 1B) has an arithmetic average roughness smaller than 3 μm ([0015,0020]).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujikura teaches of the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura further teaches the superconducting wire (Fig 1) according to claim 1, further comprising a stabilization layer (5; [0016]) that surrounds the substrate (1) and the superconducting layer (3), wherein the stabilization layer (5) includes a third surface (surface of 5 at 1B) facing the second surface (at 1B) and a fourth surface (surface of 5 away from 1B; lowermost surface of 5 in Fig ) opposite to the third surface.
Regarding Claim 11, Fujikura teaches of the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura further teaches of a superconducting device ([0047]) comprising the superconducting wire ([0047]) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikura (JP 2012252825 A; English Machine Translation provided by Applicant) as applied to claim 1 and 3 above and further in view of Daibo (US 2014/0357495 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujikura teaches of the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura does not teach the superconducting wire according to claim 3, wherein the fourth surface has an arithmetic average roughness larger than 0.02 μm.
Daibo (US 2014/0357495 A1) teaches of a superconducting wire (Fig 2) comprising a stabilization layer (12) that surrounds a substrate (1) and a superconducting layer (3), wherein the stabilization layer (12) includes a third surface (inner surface of 12 at 1) facing a second surface (lowermost surface of 1) and a fourth surface (surface of 12 away from 1; lowermost surface of 12) opposite to the third surface, wherein the fourth surface (surface of 12 away from 1; lowermost surface of 12) has an arithmetic average roughness larger than 0.02 μm ([0088] “80 nm or less” “30 to 77 nm”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Fujikura, wherein the fourth surface has an arithmetic average roughness larger than 0.02 μm as taught by Daibo, in order to improve adhesion and anchor effect (Daibo, [0063]). Please note that in the instant application, page 9, [0039], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, Fujikura in view of Daibo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Daibo further teaches the superconducting wire (Fig 2) according to claim 3, wherein the fourth surface (surface of 12 away from 1; lowermost surface of 12) has an arithmetic average roughness smaller than 1.5 μm ([0088] “80 nm or less” “30 to 77 nm”).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujikura in view of Daibo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Daibo further teaches the superconducting wire (Fig 2) according to claim 3, wherein the fourth surface (surface of 12 away from 1; lowermost surface of 12) has a maximum height roughness smaller than 8 μm ([0087-0088] “890 nm or less” “189 to 887 nm”).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujikura in view of Daibo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Fujikura further teaches the superconducting wire (Fig 1) according to claim 3, further comprising: an intermediate layer (2) provided between the substrate (1) and the superconducting layer (3), and a protective layer (4) provided on the superconducting layer (3), wherein the stabilization layer (5) surrounds the intermediate layer (2) and the protective layer (4).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujikura teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura does not disclose the superconducting wire according to claim 1, further comprising an insulating resin layer, wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and the second surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than 0.5 times a thickness of the insulating resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the second surface.
Daibo teaches of a superconducting wire (Fig 2) comprising an insulating resin layer (7B; [0080]), wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing a second surface (lower surface of 1), and a thickness ([0069] “12 um or more”) of the insulating resin layer (7B) in a direction perpendicular to the second surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Fujikura, comprising an insulating resin layer, wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and a thickness of the insulating resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the second surface as taught by Daibo, in order to wind a tape-shaped conductor and ensure electrical insulation between superconductor wires (Daibo, [0008], such that comprising an insulating resin layer, wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and the second surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than 0.5 times a thickness of the insulating resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the second surface and furthermore in order to improve adhesion and anchor effect (Fujikura, [0017]), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 7, [0034-0036], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, Fujikura teaches of the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura does not teach the superconducting wire according to claim 3, further comprising an insulating resin layer, wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and the fourth surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than a thickness of the insulating resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the second surface.
Daibo teaches of a superconducting wire (Fig 2) comprising an insulating resin layer (7B; [0080]), wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing a second surface (lower surface of 1), and a thickness ([0069] “12 um or more”) of the insulating resin layer (7B) in a direction perpendicular to the second surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Fujikura, comprising an insulating resin layer, wherein the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and a thickness of the insulating resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the second surface, in order to wind a tape-shaped conductor and ensure electrical insulation between superconductor wires (Daibo, [0008], such that the insulating resin layer includes a portion facing the second surface, and the fourth surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than a thickness of the insulating resin layer in a direction perpendicular to the second surface and furthermore in order to improve adhesion and anchor effect (Fujikura, [0017]), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 7, [0034-0036], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, Fujikura in view of Daibo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fujikura does not teach the superconducting wire according to claim 9, wherein the second surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than 0.5 times the thickness of the insulating resin layer in the direction perpendicular to the second surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire as taught by Fujikura in view of Daibo, wherein the second surface has a maximum height roughness equal to or smaller than 0.5 times the thickness of the insulating resin layer in the direction perpendicular to the second surface, in order to improve adhesion and anchor effect (Fujikura, [0017]), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 7, [0034-0036], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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, 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights