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 a certified copy of EP 19160069.1 filed February 28, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. A copy of WO 2020/173834, the WIPO publication of PCT/EP2020/054673 filed February 21, 2020, is included with this action.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed October 14, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
October 14, 2025
Amended
1, 5, 9-12, 17-20
Cancelled
2, 21
Pending
1, 3-20, 22
Withdrawn
13-15
Under Examination
1, 3-12, 16-20, 22
The applicant argues Figs. 1A, 1B, and 1C and [0058]-[0061] of applicant’s published application, where the arrows represent the course of the magnetic field lines of each magnetic closure domain (Remarks p. 7 para. 1).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed August 27, 2021 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS lists the International Search Report and the Written Opinion from the European Patent Office regarding International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2020/054679, but the documents included are for International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2020/054673.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejection is withdrawn due to argument:
Claim 1 lines 13-14 “B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain”.
The applicant persuasively argues applicant’s specification at [0058]-[0061] of the published application describe Figs. 1A, 1B, and 1C (Remarks p. 6 para. 8 to p. 8), which depict magnetic field lines 141, 142, 143, and 144 that form a magnetic closure domain, where, upon cutting, a portion of which is removed.
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 5 line 2 “the first powder comprises RE and Iron” as supported by applicant’s specification at [0031].
Claim 9 lines 4-5 “a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory”.
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 9 lines 4-5 “a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory”.
According to amended claim 9 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how magnetic grains form from ferromagnetic powder fused by irradiation, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the magnetic grains would be arranged along a printing trajectory comprising a closed loop (Remarks p. 11 para. 1).
Claim 11 lines 2, 5, and 6 “second end”.
Claim 11 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Amended claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “a printing trajectory comprising a closed loop or a spiral shaped trajectory”. In light of amended claim 1 a “second end” is clarified by the context of a closed loop or spiral shaped trajectory.
Claim 18 lines 2, 5, and 6 “second end”.
Claim 18 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Amended claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “a printing trajectory comprising a closed loop or a spiral shaped trajectory”. In light of amended claim 1 a “second end” is clarified by the context of a closed loop or spiral shaped trajectory.
Claim 19 lines 2, 5, and 6 “second end”.
Claim 19 depends from claim 17, which depends from claim 1. Amended claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “a printing trajectory comprising a closed loop or a spiral shaped trajectory”. In light of amended claim 1 a “second end” is clarified by the context of a closed loop or spiral shaped trajectory.
Claim 20 lines 1-2 “the first powder further comprises Neodymium Boron, or Carbon”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112
The applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed ferromagnetic powder fused by the claimed irradiation becomes the claimed magnetic grain (applicant’s published application [0053]), therefore, because irradiation of the powder occurs along the printing trajectory and the irradiation forms the magnetic grains, then the magnetic grains form along the printing trajectory (Remarks p. 9 para. 3).
Applicant’s [0053] in the published application recites that “By fusing the first powder in the first of further areas, i.e. in steps Aii) and/or Aiii), magnetic grains may be formed in the magnetizable workpiece”. Evidence to substantiate this allegation has not been presented. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
Therefore, the 112(a) rejection of claim 9 lines 3-4 “to form magnetic grains along the printing trajectory” is maintained.
The applicant argues when the first geometric shape in the plane of the paper of workpieces 100 is cut along the dotted line the geometric shape becomes a different shape ([0060]-[0061]) and, as indicated by the arrow, a portion of the magnetic closure domains were removed such that an incomplete portion of the magnetic closure domains remain (Remarks para. spanning pp. 9-10).
With respect to the 112(a) rejection of claim 22 lines 2-4 “cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetisable workpiece further comprises cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape defined in the plane”, applicant discloses cutting in [0041]-[0042] with reference to Figs. 1A to 1E, which supports cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape. However, applicant’s specification does not have support for a geometric shape being “defined in a plane”. Applicant’s argument appears to be alleging support for the plane of the paper in which the geometric figure is drawn. However, applicant’s specification, such as [0013]-[0017], describes Figs. 1A-1E as “a magnetizable workpiece” or a “permanent magnet”, which, absent evidence to the contrary, are three-dimensional figures depicted in two dimensions.
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed October 14, 2025, do not address nor overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 10 lines 4-5 “at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer is substantially perpendicular to at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer”. Applicant’s specification does not support both a first workpiece layer with a closed loop or spiral shaped trajectory in combination with at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer that is substantially perpendicular (90°C) to a direction of magnetic grains of at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer. Applicant’s remarks also do not clarify how a second workpiece layer can have a trajectory that is perpendicular (90°) to a closed loop or spiral shaped trajectory.
Jacimovic-2016 in view of either one of Tamura or Nakamura: Claim 1
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Jacimovic-2016 does not necessarily disclose a magnetic closure domain (Remarks p. 13 para. 1), where in light of applicant’s specification, such as [0053], one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that magnetic closure domains (e.g., pole-avoiding magnetic domains, flux closure domains) are a specific type of magnetization (e.g., by forming and arranging magnetization domains relative to each other) that do not occur from every magnetization process, and act to reduce the magnetic field outside the workpiece layer (Remarks p. 13 para. 2).
The limitation of a magnetic closure domain has been considered and determined to be a feature that results from the claimed material undergoing the claimed process. In support, Jacimovic-2016 discloses that “the process parameters define the manner in which the molten powder solidifies, and hence determine the magnetic characteristics of the printed objects accordingly” (para. spanning pp. 4-5).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses an additive manufacturing process comprising a ferromagnetic powder (NdFeB) (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) with overlapping printing parameters (Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1). Jacimovic-2016 uses selective laser melting conditions that ensure “very focused…melting volume, that can cool down very fast..” which “leads to very good magnetic properties of the as printed samples” (para. spanning pp. 3-4). Similarly, applicant’s specification at [0036] recites that as a result of “fusing the first powder in the first or further areas…magnetic closure domains, may be formed in the magnetizable workpiece” and that “it is believed that the large or macroscopic magnetic closure domains may be obtained by the rapid fusing and solidification, and/or in-plane magnetization of the first workpiece layer may be fixed during cooling down of the first workpiece layer.” Further, Jacimovic-2016 also discloses conditions that read on those recited in claims 7 and 8, including overlapping layer thickness, laser beam diameter, irradiation (exposure) time, layer power output, point distance, and hatching distance additive manufacturing process parameters (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 2).
Since the prior art (Jacimovic-2016) discloses the claimed material and processing parameters, then, absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed feature of forming a magnetic closure domain naturally flows.
The applicant argues Jacimovic-2016 maximizes magnetic field strength of the magnets and a magnetic closure domain would not necessarily result from laser intensity of 500 to 3000 mA and a point distance of 15 to 30 um (Jacimovic-2016 p. 2), where maximizing the magnetic field exhibited outside of a workpiece layer is the opposite of a magnetic closure domain (Remarks para. spanning pp. 13-14).
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Evidence to substantiate applicant’s allegations that a magnetic closure domain does not naturally flow from the process parameters of Jacimovic-2016 has not been presented.
The applicant argues that since Jacimovic-2016 does not inherently disclose a workpiece comprising a magnetic closure domain, then the cutting of Jacimovic-2016 does not remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain (Remarks p. 14 para. 2).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the prior art (Jacimovic-2016) discloses the claimed material and processing parameters (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), then, absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed feature of forming a magnetic closure domain naturally flows. Therefore, removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from subsequent cutting (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9) of the workpiece.
The applicant argues that neither Teulet or McClelland disclosure the presence of magnetic closure domains (Remarks p. 14 para. 3).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses the claimed material and processing parameters (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), such that, absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed feature of forming a magnetic closure domain naturally flows. Either one of Teulet or McClelland disclose the obviousness of a closed loop or spiral shaped trajectory (Teulet [0049]-[0050], [0076]-[0083], [0086], Fig. 7; McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6).
Jacimovic-2016 in view of either one of Tamura or Nakamura and Reinhard: Claim 4
Applicant’s claim 1 amendments, see lines 7-10, filed October 14, 2025, in combination with claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
The combination of amended claim 1 and claim 4 requires additive manufacturing of ferromagnetic powder using a closed loop or spiral shaped printing trajectory to form a magnetizable workpiece with a magnetic closure domain that produces an external magnetic field having a magnetic field strength of less than 0.1 k/m then cutting the magnetizable workpiece to form a permanent magnet that produces an external magnetic field having a magnetic field strength of at least 1 kA/m.
The cited prior art discloses the following features of claims 1 and 4. Jacimovic-2106 discloses producing permanent magnet by additive manufacturing (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1). One of Teulet, McClelland, and Das discloses additive manufacturing with a closed loop printing trajectory (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7; McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6; Das [0014], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5). Reinhard (WO 2016/023961) discloses additively manufacturing a magnet (1:5-7, 10:13-15) with a first and second region with coercivities of less than 1 kA/m and more than 10 kA/m, respectively (7:23-26, 14:23-27) to tune magnetic properties (6:26-34). Either one of Tamura or Nakamura discloses cutting a magnetizable workpiece (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0016], [0040]-[0044], [0054], [0068], Figs, 1-2, 9).
However, either one of Tamura or Nakamura in combination with Jacimovic-2016, one of Teulet, McClelland, and Das, and Reinhard does not render obvious a magnetizable workpiece additively manufactured with a closed loop or spiral shape trajectory with a magnetic closure domain and an external magnetic field strength less than 0.1 kA/m that, upon cutting, forms a permanent magnet having a magnetic field strength of at least 1 kA/m in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 9 and claim 11 line 2 “the first area” is interpreted as referring to claim 1 line 8 “a predetermined first area”.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 “iii) repeating the sequence of steps i) and ii) multiple times to form further workpiece layers of the magnetizable workpiece” is interpreted as forming further workpiece layers on top of the first workpiece layer by the depositing and irradiating processes of steps i) and ii).
Claim 7 lines 2-6 a) thickness is limited to the first workpiece layer, b) beam diameter is limited to the first powder layer, and c) irradiation time is limited to the first powder layer.
Claim 9 lines 2-5 “directing the focused energy beam along the printing trajectory…,wherein a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in the closed loop” is interpreted as requiring a printing trajectory that is a closed loop as recited in claim 1 lines 9-10.
Claim 10 lines 2-4 “step Aiii) comprises…the printing trajectory…” has antecedent basis to claim 1 lines 7-13 where Aiii) repeats the sequence of steps Ai) and Aii). Aii) recites “a printing trajectory comprising a closed loop or a spiral shaped trajectory”.
Claim 17 lines 3-5 “directing the focused energy beam along the printing trajectory…,wherein a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in the spiral shape” is interpreted as requiring a printing trajectory that is a spiral shape as recited in claim 1 lines 9-10.
Claim 22 lines 1-2 “the first workpiece layer comprises a first geometric shape defined in a plane of the first workpiece layer” is supported by applicant’s disclosure of forming a magnetizable workpiece by additive manufacturing ([0008], [0031]-[0034]), such as disclosed in US 2017/154713 ([0029]), where “The first powder layer…may have any free-form shape and/or size” ([0031], [0034]).
Claim 22 lines 2-6 recite “a first geometric shape…of the first workpiece layer,…cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape…an incomplete loop along the first printing trajectory” such that the recite geometric shape and incomplete loop are only required by the first printing trajectory and do not limit any of the subsequent printing trajectories.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 lines 7-8 recite “forming a first workpiece layer of the magnetizable workpiece comprising a magnetic closure domain”. Claim 1 lines 12-13 recite “repeating the sequence of steps i) and ii) multiple times to form further workpiece layers of the magnetizable workpiece”. Claim 1 lines 13-14 recite “cutting…the magnetizable workpiece to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain”. Does lines 13-14 “the magnetic closure domain” refer to a magnetic closure domain formed in a first workpiece layer (lines 7-8) or a magnetic closure domain formed in a first and further workpiece layers (lines 7-8 and 12-13)?
Claim 7 lines 4-6 “the laser beam” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 which recites in line 9 “a focused energy beam”, such that claim 7 should first limit the focused energy beam of claim 1 to a laser beam.
Claim 7 line 8 “a power output of a laser…” does not indicate how “a laser” relates to the process recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 lines 2-4 “a) a point distance…b) a hatching distance does not indicate how these features relate to the process recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 lines 5-6 “the magnetic grains…is…perpendicular” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 16 lines 1-2 “the workpiece layers have an internal magnetization and/or a local anisotropy” does not relate this feature to claim 1 lines 7-11 “a magnetic closure domain” that is formed in a workpiece layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-12, 17-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 lines 3-4 “to form magnetic grains along the printing trajectory” fails to comply with the written description requirement. In applicant’s specification [0036] discloses “By fusing the first powder in the first or further areas, i.e. in steps Aii) and/or Aiii), magnetic grains may be formed in the magnetizable workpiece”. However, applicant’s specification does not recite how the magnetic grains form relative to the printing trajectories, such that forming magnetic grains along the plurality of printing trajectories is not supported.
Claim 10 lines 5-7 “the magnetic grains of at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer is substantially perpendicular to a direction of magnetic grains of at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer”
to form magnetic grains along the printing trajectory” fails to comply with the written description requirement. In applicant’s specification [0036] discloses “By fusing the first powder in the first or further areas, i.e. in steps Aii) and/or Aiii), magnetic grains may be formed in the magnetizable workpiece”. However, applicant’s specification does not recite how the magnetic grains form relative to the printing trajectories, such that forming magnetic grains along the printing trajectory is not supported.
Claim 10 lines 4-5 “the magnetic grains of at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer is substantially perpendicular to a direction of magnetic grains of at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s specification at [0055] recites “printing trajectories of the second workpiece layer may be substantially perpendicular to a plurality or even all of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer”. This disclosure is with respect to printing trajectory and not magnetic grains. Further, claim 10 depends from claim 9. Claim 9 lines 4-5 require “a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in the closed loop”. Applicant’s specification does not support both an arrangement of magnetic grains in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory and magnetic grains of at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer being substantially perpendicular to magnetic grains of at least one printing trajectory of the first workpiece layer.
Further, the term “perpendicular” in claim 10 requires interacting at a right angle of 90°. Applicant does not have support for a first printing trajectory that forms magnetic grains in a closed loop in combination with a printing trajectory in a second workpiece layer being perpendicular (90°) to the first workpiece layer printing trajectory.
Claim 17 lines 3-4 “to form magnetic grains along the printing trajectory” fails to comply with the written description requirement. In applicant’s specification [0036] discloses “By fusing the first powder in the first or further areas, i.e. in steps Aii) and/or Aiii), magnetic grains may be formed in the magnetizable workpiece”. However, applicant’s specification does not recite how the magnetic grains form relative to the printing trajectories, such that forming magnetic grains along the plurality of printing trajectories is not supported.
Claim 22 lines 2-4 “cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetisable workpiece further comprises cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape defined in the plane” fails to comply with the written description requirement. While applicant discloses cutting in [0041]-[0042] and [0065]-[0066], applicant does not have support for cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape defined in the plane.
Claim 22 lines 4-6 “the different geometric shape comprises an incomplete portion of the first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in an incomplete loop along the first printing trajectory” fails to comply with the written description requirement. As discussed in the claim 22 lines 2-4 rejection over 112(a), applicant’s specification does not support cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape defined in the plane. Similarly, applicant’s specification does not recite a “different geometric shape” and if it comprises “an incomplete portion of the first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in an incomplete loop along the first printing trajectory”. Applicant’s specification does not mention an “incomplete portion of the first arrangement of magnetic grains” nor an “incomplete loop along the first printing trajectory”.
Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected as depending from claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected as depending from claim 17.
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 10 and 18 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 10 lines 6-7 “the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 line 9 recites “a printing trajectory”. In contrast, claim 10 lines 6-7 refer to “the printing trajectories”.
Claim 10 lines 4-5 “at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer is substantially perpendicular to a direction of magnetic grains of at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Amended claim 1 lines 9-10 require “a printing trajectory comprising a closed loop or a spiral shaped trajectory”. To be perpendicular, the printing trajectory of the second workpiece layer is 90°. When printing in a closed loop or spiral shape, what constitutes a perpendicular trajectory? For the purpose of examination claim 10 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of allowing for other, non-closed loop printing trajectories in the first layer, such that a perpendicular trajectory exists.
Claim 18 is rejected as depending from claim 10.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacimovic-2016 (Jacimovic et al. Net Shape 3D Printed NdFeB Permanent Magnet. ar x iv Cornell University. Submitted 15 Nov 2016.) in view of either one of Tamura (JP 2007-324461 machine translation) or Nakamura (US 2010/0244608) and Teulet (US 2015/0151491).
Regarding claim 1, Jacimovic-2016 discloses a method of producing a permanent magnet (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), comprising:
a) forming a magnetizable workpiece by additive manufacturing (selective laser melting, SLM), the additive manufacturing comprising a sequence of steps:
i) forming a first powder layer by depositing a first powder, the first powder being ferromagnetic (NdFeB);
ii) forming a first workpiece layer of the magnetizable workpiece by irradiating a predetermined first area of the first powder layer by means of a focused energy beam (laser) to fuse (melt) the first powder in the first area;
iii) repeating the sequence of steps i) and ii) multiple times to form further workpiece layers of the magnetizable workpiece; (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1);
wherein the permanent magnet produces an external magnetic field having a magnetic field strength (Hc) of at least 1 kA/m (Results and Discussion paras. 1-4).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses that “the process parameters define the manner in which the molten powder solidifies, and hence determine the magnetic characteristics of the printed objects accordingly” (para. spanning pp. 4-5).
The limitation that “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (a magnetic characteristic) has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed method of producing a permanent magnet. The prior art discloses the claimed method of producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing including the forming processes of Ai) and Aii) (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4), such that the claimed properties, including “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Jacimovic-2016 is silent to partitioning the magnetizable workpiece.
Tamura discloses producing a permanent magnet ([0001]) including B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece ([0014], [0018], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 to cut the surfaces of the produced magnet for forming the desired practical shape of the magnet (Tamura [0018]). Jacimovic-2016 in view of Tamura discloses cutting the surfaces of the produced magnet (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]), which includes exposing a surface of the permanent magnet formed by the cutting that is non-parallel to the first workpiece layer.
The limitation of “cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain” has been considered and determined to naturally flow from the claimed process. The prior art discloses producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing in which “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4) then cutting (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]), such that cutting of the magnet removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
As an alternative to Tamura, Nakamura discloses producing a permanent magnet ([0002]) including B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece (related art machine cuts by a cutting tool, [0016], [0054], [0068]), wherein an exposed surface, formed by the cutting, of the permanent magnet is non-parallel to the first workpiece layer (cutting is disclosed as being known in the related art as an alternative to the breaking of Nakamura, which is performed non-parallel to the first workpiece layer, [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 to cut the permanent magnet non-parallel to the forming direction and divide the magnet into a plurality of pieces because dividing the sintered body into a predetermined number of pieces (Nakamura [0016]) minimizes eddy current loss (Nakamura [0069], Fig. 7C), where eddy current loss generates heat and leads to irreversible thermal demagnetization, declining the magnetic properties of the permanent magnet (Nakamura [0005]).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses step Aii) comprises directed the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories to form magnetic grains (printed Nd2Fe14B phase) along the plurality of printing trajectories, and each print trajectory comprises a plurality of points of impact (Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1: printing a “one dimensional” track followed by the laser moving aside and melting the neighboring raw powder reads on a plurality of printing trajectories).
Jacimovic-2016 is silent to a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory.
Teulet discloses a method for controlling a laser beam for manufacturing three-dimensional objects by means of stacked layers ([0001]) having a first arrangement of grains arranged in a closed loop (curve) along a first printing trajectory ([0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 for a first printing trajectory to be in a closed loop (curve) to advantageously correlate the geometric contour of the section with the desired shape such that and is specifically adapted to the processed section (Teulet [0050]), choose any point of the path as a beginning-of-travel point (Teulet [0083]), and it can decrease the number of paths necessary to process the section, making it possible to decrease transition times and increase productivity (Teulet [0086]).
Therefore, a first printing trajectory of a closed loop (curve) (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7) that forms magnetic grains (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) results in a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory.
The limitation of “cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain” has been considered and determined to naturally flow from the claimed process. The prior art discloses producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing in which “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4; Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7) then cutting (Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9), such that cutting of the magnet removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the focused energy beam is a laser beam or an electron beam (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1: laser).
Regarding claim 5, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the material of the first powder comprises RE, Iron, and Boron or Carbon, wherein RE is a rare earth element of the Lanthanide series (Experimental Section para. 1, Results and Discussion para. 1: Nd7.5Pr0.7Zr2.6Ti2.5Co2.5Fe75B8.8).
Regarding claim 6, Jacimovic-2016 discloses magnetic grains (Nd2Fe14B phase) are formed in the magnetizable workpiece by steps Aii) and/or Aiii), and the magnetic grains have an average size in the plane defined by the exposed surface of at least 0.5 um (1 um) (Results and Discussion para. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jacimovic-2016 discloses
a) the thickness of the first workpiece layer is at least 10 um, and/or no larger than 150 um (Results and Discussion para. 2: layer thickness (LT) is 20 to 100 um); and/or
b) at a point of impact of the laser beam with the first powder layer, the laser beam has a diameter of less than 150 um (Experimental Section para. 2: laser focus (LF) laser light spot size diameter is 15 um to 30 um); and/or
c) at the point of impact of the laser beam with the first powder layer, the first powder layer is irradiated for at least 20 us, and/or no longer than 500 us (Experimental Section para. 2: exposure time (ET) is 10 um to 300 um); and/or
d) a powder output of a laser is at least 10 W, and/or no greater than 300 W (Experimental Section para. 2: laser maximum energy output is 120 W).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Jacimovic-2016 discloses
a) a point distance is at least 10 um, and/or no larger than 150 um (Experimental Section para. 2: point distance (PD) 1 to 50 um); and/or wherein
b) a hatching distance is at least 50 um, and/or no larger than 300 um (Results and Discussion para. 1: hatching distance (HD) is 100 um).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet discloses a first printing trajectory of a closed loop (curve) (printing trajectory comprises a plurality of points of impact) (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7) that forms magnetic grains (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), which results in a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a closed loop.
Regarding claim 11, Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet discloses the first area comprises a first and a second end, wherein a first point of impact on the first workpiece layer is adjacent to the first end, and for a second point of impact on the first workpiece layer a distance between the second point of impact and the second end is substantially equal to or less than a distance between the first point of impact and the second end (Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1; Teulet Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
265
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1a
PNG
media_image2.png
286
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1c
PNG
media_image3.png
380
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Teulet Fig. 7
Regarding claim 12, Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet discloses the first workpiece layer comprises a first section, the first section comprises one or more printing trajectories (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Fig. 1a): SLM, selective laser melting, necessarily includes a first workpiece layer with a first section with one or more printing trajectories), and the one or more printing trajectories of the first section define a first printing direction that is one of clockwise and counter-clockwise (closed curve, which has to be printed in either a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction) (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the first powder comprises Neodymium as the RE (Experimental Section para. 1, Results and Discussion para. 1: Nd7.5Pr0.7Zr2.6Ti2.5Co2.5Fe75B8.8).
Regarding claim 22, Jacimovic-2016 in view of either one of Tamura or Nakamura and Teulet discloses the first workpiece layer comprises a first geometric shape defined in a plane of the first workpiece layer (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1, Fig. 1a), wherein cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetisable workpiece further comprises cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape defined in the plane (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9).
The prior art also discloses additive manufacturing (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-2, Fig. 1a) including a first printing trajectory of a closed loop (curve) (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7) to form the (outer) contour of the section (Teulet [0050]) followed by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9), such that the different geometric shape comprising an incomplete portion of the first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in an incomplete loop along the first printing trajectory naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacimovic-2016 (Jacimovic et al. Net Shape 3D Printed NdFeB Permanent Magnet. ar x iv Cornell University. Submitted 15 Nov 2016.) in view of either one of Tamura (JP 2007-324461 machine translation) or Nakamura (US 2010/0244608) and Teulet (US 2015/0151491) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of McClelland (US 2017/0326646) and Urban-2017 (Urban et al. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 871, pp. 137-144.).
Regarding claim 10, Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet discloses step Aiii) comprises directing the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories (Jacimovic-2106 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) with a closed loop (curve) printing trajectory (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7).
Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet is silent to at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer being substantially perpendicular to at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer.
McClelland discloses an additive manufacturing method in which layers of material are solidified in a layer-by-layer manner to form an object such as by selective laser melting (SLM) ([0001]) using a border scan path of a closed polyline ([0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6) and a fill scan path 302 as raster (meander) scans, where using different scan strategies for the shell and core of the area efficiently solidify the area whilst achieving accurate surfaces for the part ([0046], Fig. 4).
Urban-2017 discloses step Aiii) comprises directing the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories (illumination patterns), and at least one printing trajectory (illumination pattern) of a second workpiece layer is substantially perpendicular (rotated 90°) to at least one of the printing trajectories (illumination pattern) of the first workpiece layer (Illumination Strategies, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet to combine the closed loop (curve) printing trajectory with a fill scan path such as a raster scan because using different scan strategies for the shell and core of the area efficiently solidify the area whilst achieving accurate surfaces for the part (McClelland [0046], Fig. 4). Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet and McClelland for the fill scan path printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer to be substantially perpendicular (rotated 90°) to at least one of the fill scan path printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer to form a smoother surface and uniform microstructure due to better heat distribution (Urban-2017 Illumination Strategies para. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Jacimovic-2016 in view of Teulet and McClelland discloses the first area comprises a first and a second end, wherein a first point of impact on the first workpiece layer is adjacent to the first end, and for a second point of impact on the first workpiece layer a distance between the second point of impact and the second end is substantially equal to or less than a distance between the first point of impact and the second end (Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1; Teulet Fig. 7; McClelland [0046], Fig. 4).
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacimovic-2016 (Jacimovic et al. Net Shape 3D Printed NdFeB Permanent Magnet. ar x iv Cornell University. Submitted 15 Nov 2016.) in view of either one of Tamura (JP 2007-324461 machine translation) or Nakamura (US 2010/0244608) and McClelland (US 2017/0326646).
Regarding claim 1, Jacimovic-2016 discloses a method of producing a permanent magnet (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), comprising:
a) forming a magnetizable workpiece by additive manufacturing (selective laser melting, SLM), the additive manufacturing comprising a sequence of steps:
i) forming a first powder layer by depositing a first powder, the first powder being ferromagnetic (NdFeB);
ii) forming a first workpiece layer of the magnetizable workpiece by irradiating a predetermined first area of the first powder layer by means of a focused energy beam (laser) to fuse (melt) the first powder in the first area;
iii) repeating the sequence of steps i) and ii) multiple times to form further workpiece layers of the magnetizable workpiece; (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1);
wherein the permanent magnet produces an external magnetic field having a magnetic field strength (Hc) of at least 1 kA/m (Results and Discussion paras. 1-4).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses that “the process parameters define the manner in which the molten powder solidifies, and hence determine the magnetic characteristics of the printed objects accordingly” (para. spanning pp. 4-5).
The limitation that “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (a magnetic characteristic) has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed method of producing a permanent magnet. The prior art discloses the claimed method of producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing including the forming processes of Ai) and Aii) (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4), such that the claimed properties, including “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Jacimovic-2016 is silent to partitioning the magnetizable workpiece.
Tamura discloses producing a permanent magnet ([0001]) including B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece ([0014], [0018], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 to cut the surfaces of the produced magnet for forming the desired practical shape of the magnet (Tamura [0018]). Jacimovic-2016 in view of Tamura discloses cutting the surfaces of the produced magnet (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]), which includes exposing a surface of the permanent magnet formed by the cutting that is non-parallel to the first workpiece layer.
The limitation of “cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain” has been considered and determined to naturally flow from the claimed process. The prior art discloses producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing in which “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4) then cutting (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]), such that cutting of the magnet removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
As an alternative to Tamura, Nakamura discloses producing a permanent magnet ([0002]) including B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece (related art machine cuts by a cutting tool, [0016], [0054], [0068]), wherein an exposed surface, formed by the cutting, of the permanent magnet is non-parallel to the first workpiece layer (cutting is disclosed as being known in the related art as an alternative to the breaking of Nakamura, which is performed non-parallel to the first workpiece layer, [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 to cut the permanent magnet non-parallel to the forming direction and divide the magnet into a plurality of pieces because dividing the sintered body into a predetermined number of pieces (Nakamura [0016]) minimizes eddy current loss (Nakamura [0069], Fig. 7C), where eddy current loss generates heat and leads to irreversible thermal demagnetization, declining the magnetic properties of the permanent magnet (Nakamura [0005]).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses step Aii) comprises directed the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories to form magnetic grains (printed Nd2Fe14B phase) along the plurality of printing trajectories, and each print trajectory comprises a plurality of points of impact (Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1: printing a “one dimensional” track followed by the laser moving aside and melting the neighboring raw powder reads on a plurality of printing trajectories).
Jacimovic-2016 is silent to a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory.
McClelland discloses an additive manufacturing method in which layers of material are solidified in a layer-by-layer manner to form an object such as by selective laser melting (SLM) ([0001]) having a first arrangement of grains arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory (border scan path, a closed polyline) ([0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 for a first printing trajectory to be a border scan that is a closed polyline to advantageously have only a single join at the common start and finish point (McClelland [0010], [0021]) and to reduce the size of columnar grain structures at a surface of a part being manufactured, which results in a strong part and reduces chances of part cracking (McClelland [0009]).
Therefore, a first printing trajectory of a closed loop (border scan path, a closed polyline) (McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6) that forms magnetic grains (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) results in a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory.
The limitation of “cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain” has been considered and determined to naturally flow from the claimed process. The prior art discloses producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing in which “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4; McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6) then cutting (Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9), such that cutting of the magnet removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the focused energy beam is a laser beam or an electron beam (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1: laser).
Regarding claim 5, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the material of the first powder comprises RE, Iron, and Boron or Carbon, wherein RE is a rare earth element of the Lanthanide series (Experimental Section para. 1, Results and Discussion para. 1: Nd7.5Pr0.7Zr2.6Ti2.5Co2.5Fe75B8.8).
Regarding claim 6, Jacimovic-2016 discloses magnetic grains (Nd2Fe14B phase) are formed in the magnetizable workpiece by steps Aii) and/or Aiii), and the magnetic grains have an average size in the plane defined by the exposed surface of at least 0.5 um (1 um) (Results and Discussion para. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jacimovic-2016 discloses
a) the thickness of the first workpiece layer is at least 10 um, and/or no larger than 150 um (Results and Discussion para. 2: layer thickness (LT) is 20 to 100 um); and/or
b) at a point of impact of the laser beam with the first powder layer, the laser beam has a diameter of less than 150 um (Experimental Section para. 2: laser focus (LF) laser light spot size diameter is 15 um to 30 um); and/or
c) at the point of impact of the laser beam with the first powder layer, the first powder layer is irradiated for at least 20 us, and/or no longer than 500 us (Experimental Section para. 2: exposure time (ET) is 10 um to 300 um); and/or
d) a powder output of a laser is at least 10 W, and/or no greater than 300 W (Experimental Section para. 2: laser maximum energy output is 120 W).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Jacimovic-2016 discloses
a) a point distance is at least 10 um, and/or no larger than 150 um (Experimental Section para. 2: point distance (PD) 1 to 50 um); and/or wherein
b) a hatching distance is at least 50 um, and/or no larger than 300 um (Results and Discussion para. 1: hatching distance (HD) is 100 um).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland discloses a first printing trajectory of a closed loop (border scan path, a closed polyline) (printing trajectory comprises a plurality of points of impact) (McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6) that forms magnetic grains (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), which reads on a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a closed loop.
Regarding claim 11, Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland discloses the first area comprises a first and a second end, wherein a first point of impact on the first workpiece layer is adjacent to the first end, and for a second point of impact on the first workpiece layer a distance between the second point of impact and the second end is substantially equal to or less than a distance between the first point of impact and the second end (Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1; McClelland [0046], Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
265
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1a
PNG
media_image2.png
286
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1c
PNG
media_image4.png
439
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
McClelland Fig. 4
Regarding claim 12, Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland discloses the first workpiece layer comprises a first section, the first section comprises one or more printing trajectories (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Fig. 1a): SLM, selective laser melting, necessarily includes a first workpiece layer with a first section with one or more printing trajectories), and the one or more printing trajectories of the first section define a first printing direction that is one of clockwise and counter-clockwise (border scan path, a closed polyline, which has to be printed in either a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction) (McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 20, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the first powder comprises Neodymium as the RE (Experimental Section para. 1, Results and Discussion para. 1: Nd7.5Pr0.7Zr2.6Ti2.5Co2.5Fe75B8.8).
Regarding claim 22, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the first workpiece layer comprises a first geometric shape defined in a plane of the first workpiece layer (Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1, Fig. 1a), wherein cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetisable workpiece further comprises cutting the first geometric shape into a different geometric shape defined in the plane (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9).
The prior art also discloses additive manufacturing (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-2, Fig. 1a) including a first printing trajectory of a border (outer edge) scan path (closed polyline) (McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6) followed by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9), such that the different geometric shape comprising an incomplete portion of the first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in an incomplete loop along the first printing trajectory naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacimovic-2016 (Jacimovic et al. Net Shape 3D Printed NdFeB Permanent Magnet. ar x iv Cornell University. Submitted 15 Nov 2016.) in view of either one of Tamura (JP 2007-324461 machine translation) or Nakamura (US 2010/0244608) and McClelland (US 2017/0326646) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Urban-2017 (Urban et al. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 871, pp. 137-144.).
Regarding claim 10, Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland discloses step Aiii) comprises directing the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories (Jacimovic-2106 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) with a border scan (McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6).
McClelland discloses a fill scan path 302 as raster (meander) scans, where using different scan strategies for the shell and core of the area efficiently solidify the area whilst achieving accurate surfaces for the part ([0046], Fig. 4).
Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland is silent to at least one printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer being substantially perpendicular to at least one of the printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer.
Urban-2017 discloses step Aiii) comprises directing the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories (illumination patterns), and at least one printing trajectory (illumination pattern) of a second workpiece layer is substantially perpendicular (rotated 90°) to at least one of the printing trajectories (illumination pattern) of the first workpiece layer (Illumination Strategies, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland for the fill scan path printing trajectory of a second workpiece layer to be substantially perpendicular (rotated 90°) to at least one of the fill scan path printing trajectories of the first workpiece layer to form a smoother surface and uniform microstructure due to better heat distribution (Urban-2017 Illumination Strategies para. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Jacimovic-2016 in view of McClelland discloses the first area comprises a first and a second end, wherein a first point of impact on the first workpiece layer is adjacent to the first end, and for a second point of impact on the first workpiece layer a distance between the second point of impact and the second end is substantially equal to or less than a distance between the first point of impact and the second end (Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1; McClelland [0046], Fig. 4).
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacimovic-2016 (Jacimovic et al. Net Shape 3D Printed NdFeB Permanent Magnet. ar x iv Cornell University. Submitted 15 Nov 2016.) in view of either one of Tamura (JP 2007-324461 machine translation) or Nakamura (US 2010/0244608) and Das (US 2002/0015654).
Regarding claim 1, Jacimovic-2016 discloses a method of producing a permanent magnet (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1), comprising:
a) forming a magnetizable workpiece by additive manufacturing (selective laser melting, SLM), the additive manufacturing comprising a sequence of steps:
i) forming a first powder layer by depositing a first powder, the first powder being ferromagnetic (NdFeB);
ii) forming a first workpiece layer of the magnetizable workpiece by irradiating a predetermined first area of the first powder layer by means of a focused energy beam (laser) to fuse (melt) the first powder in the first area;
iii) repeating the sequence of steps i) and ii) multiple times to form further workpiece layers of the magnetizable workpiece; (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1);
wherein the permanent magnet produces an external magnetic field having a magnetic field strength (Hc) of at least 1 kA/m (Results and Discussion paras. 1-4).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses that “the process parameters define the manner in which the molten powder solidifies, and hence determine the magnetic characteristics of the printed objects accordingly” (para. spanning pp. 4-5).
The limitation that “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (a magnetic characteristic) has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed method of producing a permanent magnet. The prior art discloses the claimed method of producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing including the forming processes of Ai) and Aii) (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4), such that the claimed properties, including “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Jacimovic-2016 is silent to partitioning the magnetizable workpiece.
Tamura discloses producing a permanent magnet ([0001]) including B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece ([0014], [0018], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 to cut the surfaces of the produced magnet for forming the desired practical shape of the magnet (Tamura [0018]). Jacimovic-2016 in view of Tamura discloses cutting the surfaces of the produced magnet (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]), which includes exposing a surface of the permanent magnet formed by the cutting that is non-parallel to the first workpiece layer.
The limitation of “cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain” has been considered and determined to naturally flow from the claimed process. The prior art discloses producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing in which “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4) then cutting (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]), such that cutting of the magnet removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
As an alternative to Tamura, Nakamura discloses producing a permanent magnet ([0002]) including B) forming the permanent magnet by cutting the permanent magnet from the magnetizable workpiece (related art machine cuts by a cutting tool, [0016], [0054], [0068]), wherein an exposed surface, formed by the cutting, of the permanent magnet is non-parallel to the first workpiece layer (cutting is disclosed as being known in the related art as an alternative to the breaking of Nakamura, which is performed non-parallel to the first workpiece layer, [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 to cut the permanent magnet non-parallel to the forming direction and divide the magnet into a plurality of pieces because dividing the sintered body into a predetermined number of pieces (Nakamura [0016]) minimizes eddy current loss (Nakamura [0069], Fig. 7C), where eddy current loss generates heat and leads to irreversible thermal demagnetization, declining the magnetic properties of the permanent magnet (Nakamura [0005]).
Jacimovic-2016 discloses step Aii) comprises directed the focused energy beam, along a plurality of printing trajectories to form magnetic grains (printed Nd2Fe14B phase) along the plurality of printing trajectories, and each print trajectory comprises a plurality of points of impact (Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1: printing a “one dimensional” track followed by the laser moving aside and melting the neighboring raw powder reads on a plurality of printing trajectories).
Jacimovic-2016 is silent to a first arrangement of magnetic grains are arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory.
Das discloses selective laser sintering (SLS, an additive manufacturing technique) ([0002], [0007], [0014]) having a first arrangement of grains arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory (Archimedes spiral) ([0014], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jacimovic-2016 for a first printing trajectory to be an Archmiedes spiral to advantageously maintain a constant melt pool that avoids balling (Das [0014]), forms a homogeneous, nonporous product, and maintains a constant remelt of a portion of the layer just previously scanned (Das [0033]).
Therefore, a first printing trajectory of a closed loop (Archimedes spiral) (Das [0014], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5) that forms magnetic grains (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) results in a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a closed loop along a first printing trajectory.
The limitation of “cutting…to remove a portion of the magnetic closure domain” has been considered and determined to naturally flow from the claimed process. The prior art discloses producing a permanent magnet by additive manufacturing in which “the first workpiece layer comprises a magnetic closure domain” (Jacimovic-2016 Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion paras. 1-4; Das [0014], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5) then cutting (Nakamura [0040]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, 9), such that cutting of the magnet removing a portion of the magnetic closure domain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the focused energy beam is a laser beam or an electron beam (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1: laser).
Regarding claim 5, Jacimovic-2016 discloses the material of the first powder comprises RE and Iron, wherein RE is a rare earth element of the Lanthanide series (Experimental Section para. 1, Results and Discussion para. 1: Nd7.5Pr0.7Zr2.6Ti2.5Co2.5Fe75B8.8).
Regarding claim 6, Jacimovic-2016 discloses magnetic grains (Nd2Fe14B phase) are formed in the magnetizable workpiece by steps Aii) and/or Aiii), and the magnetic grains have an average size in the plane defined by the exposed surface of at least 0.5 um (1 um) (Results and Discussion para. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jacimovic-2016 discloses
a) the thickness of the first workpiece layer is at least 10 um, and/or no larger than 150 um (Results and Discussion para. 2: layer thickness (LT) is 20 to 100 um); and/or
b) at a point of impact of the laser beam with the first powder layer, the laser beam has a diameter of less than 150 um (Experimental Section para. 2: laser focus (LF) laser light spot size diameter is 15 um to 30 um); and/or
c) at the point of impact of the laser beam with the first powder layer, the first powder layer is irradiated for at least 20 us, and/or no longer than 500 us (Experimental Section para. 2: exposure time (ET) is 10 um to 300 um); and/or
d) a powder output of a laser is at least 10 W, and/or no greater than 300 W (Experimental Section para. 2: laser maximum energy output is 120 W).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Jacimovic-2016 discloses
a) a point distance is at least 10 um, and/or no larger than 150 um (Experimental Section para. 2: point distance (PD) 1 to 50 um); and/or wherein
b) a hatching distance is at least 50 um, and/or no larger than 300 um (Results and Discussion para. 1: hatching distance (HD) is 100 um).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, a first printing trajectory of a spiral shape (Archimedes spiral) (printing trajectory comprises a plurality of points of impact) (Das [0014], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5) that forms magnetic grains (Jacimovic-2016 Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1) reads on a first arrangement of magnetic grains arranged in a spiral shape.
Regarding claim 19, Jacimovic-2016 in view of Das discloses the first area comprises a first and a second end, wherein a first point of impact on the first workpiece layer is adjacent to the first end, and for a second point of impact on the first workpiece layer a distance between the second point of impact and the second end is substantially equal to or less than a distance between the first point of impact and the second end (Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1; Das [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
265
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1a
PNG
media_image5.png
269
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jacimovic-2016 Fig. 1c
PNG
media_image6.png
292
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Das Fig. 3
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Jacimovic-2106 discloses producing permanent magnet by additive manufacturing (Abstract, Experimental Section para. 2, Results and Discussion para. 1). One of Teulet, McClelland, and Das discloses additive manufacturing with a closed loop printing trajectory (Teulet [0049], [0076]-[0082], Fig. 7; McClelland [0008]-[0010], [0021], [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-6; Das [0014], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 3-5). Reinhard (WO 2016/023961) discloses additively manufacturing a magnet (1:5-7, 10:13-15) with a first and second region with coercivities of less than 1 kA/m and more than 10 kA/m, respectively (7:23-26, 14:23-27) to tune magnetic properties (6:26-34). Either one of Tamura or Nakamura discloses cutting a magnetizable workpiece (Tamura [0014], [0018], [0021]; Nakamura [0016], [0040]-[0044], [0054], [0068], Figs, 1-2, 9).
However, either one of Tamura or Nakamura in combination with Jacimovic-2016, one of Teulet, McClelland, and Das, and Reinhard does not render obvious a magnetizable workpiece additively manufactured with a closed loop or spiral shape trajectory with magnetic closure domains and an external magnetic field strength less than 0.1 kA/m that, upon cutting, forms a permanent magnet having a magnetic field strength of at least 1 kA/m in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735