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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, the limitations “at least two different electrically conducting regions… constructed superconducting characteristics” renders the claim indefinite because it does not provide any structural boundaries or criteria for determining the region as claimed.
Claim 2, the limitation drawn to grooves “adapted to form a continuing groove” is indefinite because it does not impose a structural limitation.
Claim 3, the limitations drawn to grooves adapted to guide a flow of current in a certain direction and a magnetic field at least partially confined are indefinite because the claimed “certain direction” is vague and lacks definition and “at least partially confined” is subjective and lacks measurable boundaries. The specification does not disclose how confinement or directional guidance is determined.
Claim 4, the limitations drawn to determining the electrical current configuration and therefore, the shape of the magnetic field that is formed when the current flows render the claim indefinite because the specification does not disclose how groove geometry determines distribution and magnetic field shape.
Claim 5, the term “contains” is indefinite because the specification does not define whether the metal must fully, partially, or merely be present within the groove.
Claim 6-7, 9 and 17 recite “adapted to” without accompanying structural detail. It has been held that the recitation that the element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Claim 15, the phrase " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-20 are rejected as having the same under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph deficiencies as their parent claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hampshire [GB2562385A], Applicant Cited Art.
Claim 1, Hampshire discloses an assembly comprising a plurality of modular coils mechanically and electrically joined together, wherein each modular coil comprises a groove separating the modular coil into at least two different electrically conducting regions; wherein at least one of the modular coils is constructed to exhibit superconducting characteristics, and is constructed as a stacking of different materials comprising at least a superconducting layer comprising a superconducting material, wherein the groove of said modular coil is patterned at least in the superconducting layer [Hampshire teaches a multi coil superconducting assembly with patterned grooves defining conducting regions within a stacked superconducting structure; see pages 1-5, Fig 3A-3C, 4] .
Claim 2, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of modular coils comprises at least a first modular coil having a first groove and a second modular coil joined to the first modular coil and having a second groove, wherein the first and second grooves are adapted to form a continuing groove separating the joined first and second modular coils into at least two different electrically conducting regions [see pg. 9, Fig 7, 31e, 32e, 33].
Claim 3, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the grooves are adapted to guide a flow of current in a certain direction through the joined modular coils, in order to create a magnetic field that is at least partially confined in the assembly [pages 1-2, Fig 2A-2B].
Claim 4, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the groove of at least one of the modular coils determines the electrical current configuration to pass through said modular coil, and therefore, the shape of the magnetic field that is formed when the current flows [page 2-3, Fig 3B].
Claim 5, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the groove of at least one of the modular coils contains a metal, for example silver [pages 3-4, Fig 5].
Claim 6,Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of modular coils comprises a first modular coil having a first joining mechanism, like a flange, and a second modular coil having a second joining mechanism, like a flange, adapted to be coupled, preferably connected, to the first joining mechanism [31, 32, pages 7-8, Fig 6C].
Claim 7, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 6, wherein each joining mechanism is also adapted to provide for electrical connection between the first and second modular coils [3g, 33, pages 3-4, Fig 3A-3C].
Claim 8, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the modular coils comprises a channel, for example to enable a cooling fluid, like nitrogen or helium, to flow through said modular coil [3fc, page 4, Fig 4].
Claim 9, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of modular coils comprises a first modular coil having a first channel and a second modular coil joined to the first modular coil and having a second channel adapted to be joined to the first channel to form a single channel that crosses the joined first and second modular coils [pages 3-4, Fig 4].
Claim 10, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the superconducting material is a yttrium barium copper oxide or a rare-earth barium copper oxide [page 4, ARV reactor].
Claim 11, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the stacking comprises: a structural layer, for example composed or covered by a material like Hastelloy; a plurality of buffer layers on the structural layer; the superconducting layer on the plurality of buffer layers; wherein the groove is patterned in the buffer layers and the superconducting layer [pages 2-4, Fig 3B-3C].
Claim 12, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the stacking comprises a silver layer on the superconducting layer [page 4].
Claim 13, Hampshire disclose the assembly according to claim 11, wherein the stacking further comprises: a shunt layer on the superconducting layer and in the groove, the shunt layer being made of a metal, for example silver [pages 3-4, Fig 5].
Claim 14, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 13, wherein the stacking comprises a repeater layer under the shunt layer, the repeater layer being made of the repetition of the buffer and superconducting layers, and in some cases of the silver layer, preferably several repetitions, for example between 4 and 80 repetitions, wherein the groove is patterned in the buffer layers, the superconducting layer and the repeater layer [pages 2-3, Fig 3A].
Claim 15, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 13, wherein the stacking comprises another superconducting layer, preferably a non-perforated and non- grooved layer, on the shunt layer, the other superconducting layer comprising for example a superconducting material, like yttrium barium copper oxide or rare-earth barium copper oxide [page 4].
Claim 16, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 11, wherein the channel of the at least one modular coil goes through the structural layer [page 4, Fig 4].
Claim 17, Hampshire disclose the assembly according to claims 1, wherein at least one of the modular coils comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first and second portions being adapted to be coupled together, for example the first portion comprising a connecting seam and the second portion comprising a receiving cavity adapted to engage the connecting seam [pages 7-8, Fig 6C].
Claim 18, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the modular coils, and for example each of the first and second portions of said modular coil, is formed of at least two walls assembled together, for example two or three walls [pages 7-9, Fig 6A-7].
Claim 19, Hampshire discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the modular coils form a magnetic chamber [pages 1-2, Fig 1-2B].
Claim 20, Hampshire discloses a modular coil adapted to an assembly according to claim 1 [pages 7-8, Fig 6C].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights