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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 amended
Claims 6-7 new
Claims 1-7 pending
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2021/0064085 A, English translated) in view of Yoshihara (PG Pub 2020/0058419 A1).
Consider Claims 1-7, Kim teaches the process of superconductive wire (abstract), using a substrate (10) having main surface and a buffer layer (1) on the main surface of the substrate (figure 1). Kim teaches the width of the substrate is orthogonal to the length of the substrate (figure 2). Kim teaches buffer layer (1) to include; base layer (30) on the substrate (10), IBAN layer (40) on the base layer (30), and surface layer (50) on the IBAN layer (40) (figure 1, [0032]-[0033]). Kim teaches the IBAN layer is made from MgO (constituent material) deposited by electron beam evaporation process (290) onto the substrate (figure 2, [0038]), and where during the deposition of the MgO onto the substrate, an irradiation region of ion beam source (280) is overlapping with the evaporation region of the MgO, while the substrate is transported in a longitude direction (figure 2), as the direction of the ion beam from the ion beam source is applied at an inclined with respect to the main surface of the substrate during transportation process (figure 2). Kim teaches the substrate/wire is transported multiple times (figure 2). Kim teaches the substrate is made from metal/Hastelloy [0036]. Kim teaches the width of the ion beam is wider than the width of the substrate (figure 5a, 6a, [0068, [0072]-[0073]). Kim teaches the longitudinal direction of the ion beam source is along the length direction of the substrate (figures 2).
Where it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art to adjust the irradiation direction of the ion beam onto the substrate to be in a longitudinal direction of the ion beam source is along the width direction of the substrate, using routine experimentation and known engineering principles, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does teach the width of the superconductive wire.
However, Yoshihara is in the prior art of forming superconductive wire (abstract), teaches the width (W) of the wire is 30 mm [0056]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kim with Yoshihara to process a conductive wire having 15 mm width or more, to increase the maximum critical current [0021].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights