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 Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “radiofrequency” in line 1 has a typographical error.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of “radiofrequency” in line 1 has a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-12, 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (JP 2016065725 A) in view of Folts et al. (KR 20091005752 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tamada et al. teach a system (soundness diagnosis system 100; Figs 1-2) comprising:
a cable extending down a metal tubular conduit and being cooled by a dielectric liquid near boiling point conditions to form a cable-conduit system (a former 12, an inner superconducting layer 14, an inner insulating layer 16, an outer superconducting layer 18, an outer insulating layer 20, an inner pipe 22 and an outer pipe 24; FIG. 1; [0027]; the low temperature refrigerant supplied from a refrigerator is supplied from the one end side into the former 12 having a hollow structure to cool the heat load; the other end side, circulation cooling is performed by passing through a space 28 formed between the inner pipe 22 of the cooling pipe 26 and the outer insulating layer 20; [0028]); and
a unit that is configured to inject a stimulus signal and detect a local hot spot formation on the cable via a change in electrical resistance of the cable-conduit system (a pulse signal input unit 42 for inputting a high frequency pulse signal for performing soundness diagnosis for propagating in the superconducting feeder cable 10; the propagation signal receiving unit 43 that receives a signal, the electrical resistance measurement unit 44 that measures the electrical resistance value of the superconducting feeder based on the received propagation signal, and the soundness of the superconducting cable 10 are determined based on the measured electrical resistance value A by the determination unit 45 is provided; [0031]; FIG. 2; the determination unit 45 determines whether the electric resistance value r calculated in step S104 exceeds a threshold r* set in advance to determine the presence or absence of the quench; [0056]; FIG. 10).
Further regarding claim 1, Tamada et al. do not teach the unit is a vector network analyzer, and the change in electric resistance is via a change in relative permittivity.
Further regarding claim 1, Folts et al. teach the unit is a vector network analyzer (the impedance may be a complex vector quantity composed of an effective component and an invalid component; [0091]; Figs 7-8), and the change in electric resistance is via a change in relative permittivity (the formation of a gas bubble of liquid nitrogen can reduce the dielectric strength of the insulating layer; [0051]; reduction in the dielectric strength of the insulating layer corresponds to a change in the relative permittivity of the insulating layer and hence, the impedance of the cable) for the purpose of avoiding overheating of the conductor in the cable.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the unit is a vector network analyzer, and the change in electric resistance is via a change in relative permittivity, as taught by Folts et al., into Tamada et al. for the purpose of avoiding overheating of the conductor in the cable.
Regarding claim 4, Tamada et al. teach wherein the cable is superconducting, resistive, or cryoresistive (a former 12, an inner superconducting layer 14, an inner insulating layer 16, an outer superconducting layer 18, an outer insulating layer 20, an inner pipe 22 and an outer pipe 24; FIG. 1; [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Tamada et al. teach wherein the dielectric liquid is a cryogenic fluid (liquid nitrogen; [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Tamada et al. do not teach wherein the cable-conduit system is integrated in an electric aircraft.
Further regarding claim 8, Folts et al. teach the cable-conduit system is integrated in an electric aircraft (the present invention is equally applicable to non-utility applications such as industrial power distribution or power distribution of transport means, e.g., trains, planes and spacecraft; [0042]) for the purpose of applying superconductor cables in various types of power distribution.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the cable-conduit system is integrated in an electric aircraft, as taught by Folts et al., into Tamada et al. for the purpose of applying superconductor cables in various types of power distribution.
Regarding claim 9, Tamada et al. do not teach wherein the cable-conduit system is integrated in an electric grid.
Further regarding claim 9, Folts et al. teach the cable-conduit system is integrated in an electric grid (the present invention is equally applicable to non-utility applications such as industrial power distribution or power distribution of transport means, e.g., trains, planes and spacecraft; [0042]) for the purpose of applying superconductor cables in various types of power distribution.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the cable-conduit system is integrated in an electric grid, as taught by Folts et al., into Tamada et al. for the purpose of applying superconductor cables in various types of power distribution.
Regarding claim 10, Tamada et al. do not teach wherein the cable comprises ceramic materials based on mixed oxide of copper, barium and yttrium YBCO, or of bismuth, lead, strontium, calcium and copper BSCCO.
Further regarding claim 10, Folts et al. teach the cable comprises ceramic materials based on mixed oxide of copper, barium and yttrium YBCO, or of bismuth, lead, strontium, calcium and copper BSCCO (the HTS material is defined as a superconductor having a critical temperature of 30K or higher, and is a rare-earth or yttrium-barium-copper-oxide YBCO; [0004]) for the purpose of using a high temperature superconductor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the cable comprises ceramic materials based on mixed oxide of copper, barium and yttrium YBCO, or of bismuth, lead, strontium, calcium and copper BSCCO, as taught by Folts et al., into Tamada et al. for the purpose of using a high temperature superconductor.
Regarding claim 11, Tamada et al. teach wherein the dielectric liquid comprises helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, or mixture thereof (liquid nitrogen; [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Tamada et al. teach a method (soundness diagnosis system 100; Figs 1-2; method of diagnosing the soundness of the superconducting cable 10; Figs 10-11) comprising:
extending a cable within an interior length of a metal tubular conduit (a former 12, an inner superconducting layer 14, an inner insulating layer 16, an outer superconducting layer 18, an outer insulating layer 20, an inner pipe 22 and an outer pipe 24; FIG. 1; [0027]);
cooling the extended cable with a dielectric liquid near boiling point conditions to form a cable-conduit system (the low temperature refrigerant supplied from a refrigerator is supplied from the one end side into the former 12 having a hollow structure to cool the heat load; the other end side, circulation cooling is performed by passing through a space 28 formed between the inner pipe 22 of the cooling pipe 26 and the outer insulating layer 20; [0028]); and
injecting a stimulus signal and detecting a local hot spot formation on the cable via a change in electrical resistance of the cable-conduit system (a pulse signal input unit 42 for inputting a high frequency pulse signal for performing soundness diagnosis for propagating in the superconducting feeder cable 10; the propagation signal receiving unit 43 that receives a signal, the electrical resistance measurement unit 44 that measures the electrical resistance value of the superconducting feeder based on the received propagation signal, and the soundness of the superconducting cable 10 are determined based on the measured electrical resistance value A by the determination unit 45 is provided; [0031]; FIG. 2; the determination unit 45 determines whether the electric resistance value r calculated in step S104 exceeds a threshold r* set in advance to determine the presence or absence of the quench; [0056]; FIG. 10).
Further regarding claim 12, Tamada et al. do not teach the injecting the stimulus signal and detecting is via a vector network analyzer, and the change in electric resistance is via a change in relative permittivity.
Further regarding claim 12, Folts et al. teach injecting a stimulus signal and detecting is via a vector network analyzer (the impedance may be a complex vector quantity composed of an effective component and an invalid component; [0091]; Figs 7-8), and the change in electric resistance is via a change in relative permittivity (the formation of a gas bubble of liquid nitrogen can reduce the dielectric strength of the insulating layer; [0051]; reduction in the dielectric strength of the insulating layer corresponds to a change in the relative permittivity of the insulating layer and hence, the impedance of the cable) for the purpose of avoiding overheating of the conductor in the cable.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the injecting the stimulus signal and detecting is via a vector network analyzer, and the change in electric resistance is via a change in relative permittivity, as taught by Folts et al., into Tamada et al. for the purpose of avoiding overheating of the conductor in the cable.
Regarding claim 15, Tamada et al. teach wherein the cable is superconducting, resistive, or cryoresistive (a former 12, an inner superconducting layer 14, an inner insulating layer 16, an outer superconducting layer 18, an outer insulating layer 20, an inner pipe 22 and an outer pipe 24; FIG. 1; [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Tamada et al. do not teach wherein the cable comprises ceramic materials based on mixed oxide of copper, barium and yttrium YBCO, or of bismuth, lead, strontium, calcium and copper BSCCO.
Further regarding claim 18, Folts et al. teach the cable comprises ceramic materials based on mixed oxide of copper, barium and yttrium YBCO, or of bismuth, lead, strontium, calcium and copper BSCCO (the HTS material is defined as a superconductor having a critical temperature of 30K or higher, and is a rare-earth or yttrium-barium-copper-oxide YBCO; [0004]) for the purpose of using a high temperature superconductor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the cable comprises ceramic materials based on mixed oxide of copper, barium and yttrium YBCO, or of bismuth, lead, strontium, calcium and copper BSCCO, as taught by Folts et al., into Tamada et al. for the purpose of using a high temperature superconductor.
Regarding claim 19, Tamada et al. teach wherein the dielectric liquid comprises helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, or mixture thereof (liquid nitrogen; [0027]).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (JP 2016065725 A) as modified by Folts et al. (KR 20091005752 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (JP 5683677 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach wherein the metal tubular conduit comprises a corrugated metal tubular conduit.
Further regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches the metal tubular conduit comprises a corrugated metal tubular conduit (metal double heat insulation pipe 16; FIG. 8; page 25) for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the metal tubular conduit comprises a corrugated metal tubular conduit, as taught by Watanabe, into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
Regarding claim 5, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach wherein the metal tubular conduit is an inner metallic layer of a cable cryostat.
Further regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches the metal tubular conduit is an inner metallic layer of a cable cryostat (metal double heat insulation pipe 16; FIG. 8; page 25) for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the metal tubular conduit is an inner metallic layer of a cable cryostat, as taught by Watanabe, into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (JP 2016065725 A) as modified by Folts et al. (KR 20091005752 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 30, no. 2, Mar. 2020, Art. No. 1500405).
Regarding claim 7, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach wherein the stimulus signal comprises radiofrequency pulses.
Further regarding claim 7, Chen et al. teach a stimulus signal comprises radiofrequency pulses (a new quench detection method-radio frequency RF wave method; Abstract) for the purpose of detecting quench without having to energize the superconductor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the stimulus signal comprises radiofrequency pulses, as taught by Chen et al., into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of detecting quench without having to energize the superconductor.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (JP 2016065725 A) as modified by Folts et al. (KR 20091005752 A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Watanabe (JP 5683677 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach wherein the metal tubular conduit comprises a corrugated metal tubular conduit.
Further regarding claim 13, Watanabe teaches the metal tubular conduit comprises a corrugated metal tubular conduit (metal double heat insulation pipe 16; FIG. 8; page 25) for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the metal tubular conduit comprises a corrugated metal tubular conduit, as taught by Watanabe, into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
Regarding claim 16, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach wherein the metal tubular conduit is an inner metallic layer of a cable cryostat.
Further regarding claim 16, Watanabe teaches the metal tubular conduit is an inner metallic layer of a cable cryostat (metal double heat insulation pipe 16; FIG. 8; page 25) for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the metal tubular conduit is an inner metallic layer of a cable cryostat, as taught by Watanabe, into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of reducing AC loss.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (JP 2016065725 A) as modified by Folts et al. (KR 20091005752 A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 30, no. 2, Mar. 2020, Art. No. 1500405).
Regarding claim 17, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach wherein the stimulus signal comprises radiofrequency pulses.
Further regarding claim 17, Chen et al. teach a stimulus signal comprises radiofrequency pulses (a new quench detection method-radio frequency RF wave method; Abstract) for the purpose of detecting quench without having to energize the superconductor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the stimulus signal comprises radiofrequency pulses, as taught by Chen et al., into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of detecting quench without having to energize the superconductor.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (JP 2016065725 A) as modified by Folts et al. (KR 20091005752 A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2007/0053116 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. do not teach measure an impedance parameter of the cable as an operational baseline; and comparing the operational baseline against subsequent RF impedance measurements of the cable to indicate a relative permittivity of the cable.
Further regarding claim 20, Ichikawa et al. teach measure a parameter of a cable as an operational baseline; and comparing the operational baseline against subsequent measurements of the cable to indicate a change the parameter of the cable (to be more precise, it is thinkable to render the phase difference at 30 seconds earlier than current time as the reference phase difference and determine that the quench has occurred in the case where the difference between the reference phase difference and the current phase difference exceeds 0.2 degrees; [0036]; FIG. 4) for the purpose of detecting quench by comparing to a reference parameter.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate measure an impedance parameter of the cable as an operational baseline; and comparing the operational baseline against subsequent RF impedance measurements of the cable to indicate a relative permittivity of the cable, as taught by Ichikawa et al., into Tamada et al. as modified by Folts et al. for the purpose of detecting quench by comparing to a reference parameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim(s) 3 is the inclusion of “wherein the local hot spot formation is detected by measuring changes in radio frequency (RF) impedance in the dielectric liquid”. These limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, making claim(s) 3 allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim(s) 14 is the inclusion of “wherein the local hot spot formation is detected by measuring changes in radio frequency (RF) impedance in the dielectric liquid”. These limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, making claim(s) 3 allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
3 August 2026
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights