CTNF 18/259,370 CTNF 86416 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the stack of magnetic laminations is manufactured by a method for according to claim 1” (lines 5-8; emphasis added) does not make logical sense. The claim should instead recite: “the stack of magnetic laminations is manufactured by [[ a ]] the method for according to of claim 1” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) , as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 discloses “manufacturing the plurality of magnetic laminations using screen and/or stencil printing ” (lines 2-4; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite, because there is nothing at all in antecedent claim 1 which provides a step that would have anything to do with screen or stencil printing, and thus this claim bears no relation to the method of claim 1. There is only a single, broad and generic, physical step in claim 1, “stacking the plurality of the magnetic laminations”. This step does not relate to screen or stencil printing in any way. As such, the reader cannot possibly guess how the claim is intended to further limit the method. Claim 3 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “ the respective physical property comprises one or more of : a geometric dimensions of the magnetic lamination, a density of the magnetic lamination, a microstructure, chemical composition, a topography, a heat conductivity, one or more mechanical internal stresses of the magnetic lamination, one or more magnetic properties of the magnetic lamination, a saturation field strength, a coercive field strength, a remanence, a hysteresis” (lines 2-13; emphasis added). This is language is not an accepted Markush style grouping, and instead is a clear attempt to recite any possible combination of limitations. There is literally no possible way that the Applicant has performed the method recited in all of its 39 million permutations (11 factorial different combinations). The Examiner is giving the Applicant the benefit of the doubt by not also applying a 112(a) rejection given that there is zero likelihood that the Applicant actually had performed recording of, and thus had possession of all of these possible different method altering physical properties data recited in this claim. This type of claim is not acceptable in US Patent practice. The Applicant is strongly encouraged to decide what the actually performed method was, and to recite as much. Claim 4 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “ the setpoint value for the physical variable comprises one or more of : geometric dimensions of the stack of magnetic laminations, an overall density of the stack, a variance in geometric dimensions of the stack, one or more magnetic properties of the stack, a magnetic saturation field strength, parameters of a hysteresis curve, a coercive field strength, or a remanence” (lines 2-11; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reason as claim 3. The Applicant certainly did not perform a method wherein over 40,000 permutations of the physical variable were analyzed to determine a setpoint value and then apply that information in manufacture of the stack. The reader cannot possibly guess what method(s) is/are intended by this exorbitant number of claimed inventions. Claim 5 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the stacking sequence is ascertained for a genuine subset of the plurality of magnetic laminations” (lines 2-4; emphasis added). The term “genuine subset” is not an industry standard term and thus does not have a clear meaning. Further, this claim does not apparently further limit claim 1 in any discernable manner. The reader cannot guess how the use of a “genuine subset” modifies or defines the claimed method. Claim 9 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “ adapting and/or exchanging elements for adapting the actual value to the setpoint value ; the stacking sequence is ascertained taking into account the adapting and/or exchanging elements in such a way that a deviation of an actual value for the physical variable of the stack with the ascertained stacking sequence from the at least one setpoint value is reduced by means of the adapting and/or exchanging elements” (lines 3-10; emphasis added). This claim is impossible to understand. Is the “adapting and/or exchanging elements” a physical step of modifying some structure, or yet another mental process? Does the method involve adapting, or does it involve exchanging? What is entailed in a step of “adapting.. elements”? How are they adapted ? What are the “elements”? This term is entirely lacking in antecedent basis and is indefinite in and of itself. What does “taking into account” mean? This vague hedging term tells the reader nothing about how the supposed “adapting and/or exchanging” would affect the method. The Applicant is again strongly encouraged to decide what the actual physical method of manufacture is intended to be, and to disclose as much in the claims. Claim 10 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the adapting and/or exchanging elements are manufactured using additive manufacturing ” (lines 1-4; emphasis added). This claim is replete with indefiniteness issues. First, there is no antecedent basis for “the adapting and/or exchanging elements” in claim 1. Second, even if this claim were intended to be dependent upon claim 9, instead of claim 1, claim 9 does not recite “adapting and/or exchanging elements” as physical structures in any manner at all. Claim 9 discloses an apparent mental process and the “elements” are not even defined in any understandable manner. As such, one cannot “manufacture” mental steps. Even further, “additive manufacturing” is so broad as to be vague. There are literally an unknowable number of different ways to perform additive manufacturing. What actual step is intended in this claim? This language is akin to disclosing: “The method of manufacture, further comprising: manufacturing by a method.” There is no way to determine how this claim is intended to further define the method. Claim 11 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the stacking aid is manufactured by additive manufacturing processes and the stack is formed by means of the stacking aid” (lines 1-4; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for effectively the same reasons as claim 10. There is no “stacking aid” anywhere in antecedent claim 1. Even if there were, there is also no steps of manufacturing a stacking aid. Additionally, the “additive manufacturing” is indefinite for the same reason as in claim 10. Further still, the “stack [being] formed” is not in claim 1 and it is impossible to know what step this is referring to or if it is reciting a new step entirely. NOTE : Claims 2-5 and 9-11 have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Sethuraman et al. (US 2020/0188996 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Sethuraman discloses a method for manufacturing a stack of magnetic laminations for a rotor and/or stator of an electric machine (Title; Abstract; par. 0006), the method comprising: recording a respective physical property (topology, or mass, or weight, or amount of magnetic material, or torque of a component) of each respective magnetic lamination from a plurality of magnetic laminations (pars. 0018 and 0022); determining a setpoint value (optimization of topology, or mass, or weight, or amount of magnetic material, or torque of a component) for a physical variable of the stack of magnetic laminations (pars. 0022-0026); ascertaining a stacking sequence of the individual magnetic laminations of the plurality reducing a deviation of an actual value for the physical variable of the stack with the ascertained stacking sequence from a setpoint value in relation to stacks with other stacking sequences of magnetic laminations (pars. 0023-0026 and 0031); and stacking the plurality of the magnetic laminations in the ascertained stacking sequence (pars. 0027 and 0030-0031). NOTE : though not necessarily indefinite, the “recording”, “determining”, and “ascertaining” steps are exceedingly broad in that they provide no structure or mechanism for performing those steps of the method. As such, these steps can be reasonably interpreted to be performed mentally by an operator, or by any generic computing device. Accordingly, where the prior art discloses that the physical property or properties and physical variable(s) is/are utilized in determining the stacking sequence of laminations, then it is reasonably held that the mental steps noted above have been performed, whether by a human operator or by a generic computing device. Regarding claim 3 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the respective physical property comprises one or more of: a geometric dimensions of the magnetic lamination, a density of the magnetic lamination, a microstructure, chemical composition, a topography, a heat conductivity, one or more mechanical internal stresses of the magnetic lamination, one or more magnetic properties of the magnetic lamination, a saturation field strength, a coercive field strength, a remanence, a hysteresis (pars. 0018 and 0022). Regarding claim 4 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the setpoint value for the physical variable comprises one or more of: geometric dimensions of the stack of magnetic laminations, an overall density of the stack, a variance in geometric dimensions of the stack, one or more magnetic properties of the stack, a magnetic saturation field strength, parameters of a hysteresis curve, a coercive field strength, or a remanence (pars. 0018 and 0022). Regarding claim 5 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacking sequence is ascertained for a genuine subset (using finite element analysis) of the plurality of magnetic laminations (pars. 0023-0026). Regarding claim 6 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein ascertaining the stacking sequence includes firstly determining at least two or more candidate stacking sequences for a stacking sequence and comparing actual values for the candidate stacking sequences with the setpoint value and ascertaining as stacking sequence that candidate stacking sequence that has an actual value deviating the least from the setpoint value (pars. 0019, and 0023-0026). Regarding claim 7 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacking sequence is ascertained using artificial intelligence (pars. 0006 and 0019). Regarding claim 8 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: recording a geometric shape of the stack; and ascertaining a geometric shape of a stacking aid (inactive thermal and structural parts) which makes it possible to stack the magnetic laminations in the ascertained stacking sequence (pars. 0024 and 0031). Regarding claim 9 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: adapting and/or exchanging elements (through FEA and mesh analysis) for adapting the actual value to the setpoint value; the stacking sequence is ascertained taking into account the adapting and/or exchanging elements in such a way that a deviation of an actual value for the physical variable of the stack with the ascertained stacking sequence from the at least one setpoint value is reduced by means of the adapting and/or exchanging elements (pars. 0023-0025 and 0028-0029). Regarding claim 10 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adapting and/or exchanging elements are manufactured using additive manufacturing (pars. 0014 and 0020). Regarding claim 11 , Sethuraman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacking aid is manufactured by additive manufacturing processes and the stack is formed by means of the stacking aid (pars. 0014, 0020 and 0031). Regarding claim 14 , Sethuraman discloses a method for manufacturing an electric machine, the method comprising: forming a rotor and/or a stator with a stack of magnetic laminations; wherein the stack of magnetic laminations is manufactured by a method for according to claim 1 (pars. 0006 and 0027) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethuraman, in view of Kool et al. (US 2018/0183279 A1) . Regarding claim 2 , Sethuraman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sethuraman, however, does not explicitly disclose manufacturing the plurality of magnetic laminations using screen and/or stencil printing. Kool teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract); including optimizing physical variables and properties of an intended lamination stack (pars. 0083, 0087-0089, 0091 and 0093); and stacking the laminations (pars. 0089 and 0093); and further including manufacturing the plurality of magnetic laminations using screen and/or stencil printing (par. 0069). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Sethuraman to incorporate the use of stencil printing of Kool. POSITA would have realized that stencil printing is an old and well-known expedient in the art which can be easily and readily employed in lieu of or in addition to the 3-D printing of Sethuraman to achieve the desired precision of formation, and to develop the intended physical properties of the stack in an easily controlled manner. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special screen or stencil printing technique was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Sethuraman with the well-known stencil printing of Kool. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethuraman, in view of Bäcker (US 2021/0241973 A1) . Regarding claim 12 , Sethuraman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sethuraman, however, does not explicitly disclose that the magnetic laminations are stacked and pressed together. Bäcker teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method for manufacturing a stack of magnetic laminations for a rotor and/or stator of an electric machine (Title; Abstract), the method comprising: recording a respective physical property of each respective magnetic lamination from a plurality of magnetic laminations; determining a setpoint value for a physical variable of the stack of magnetic laminations; ascertaining a stacking sequence of the individual magnetic laminations of the plurality reducing a deviation of an actual value for the physical variable of the stack with the ascertained stacking sequence from a setpoint value in relation to stacks with other stacking sequences of magnetic laminations (pars. 0010, 0019 and 0051); and stacking the plurality of the magnetic laminations in the ascertained stacking sequence (pars. 0012 and 0068); wherein the magnetic laminations are stacked and pressed together (pars. 0068 and 0084). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Sethuraman to incorporate the pressing of Bäcker. POSITA would have realized that lamination is well understood to be a method of forming a stack by the application of heat and pressure, and that the formation of a lamination in Sethuraman can be easily and readily understood to incorporate pressing achieve the desired robust layer bonds, predictably resistant to delamination. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special pressing step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Sethuraman with the well-known pressing of Bäcker. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Regarding claim 13 , Sethuraman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sethuraman, however, does not explicitly disclose that the magnetic laminations are alternately stacked and pressed together. Bäcker teaches that it is well known that the magnetic laminations are alternately stacked and pressed together (figs. 1A-2; pars. 0068, 0071-0076, and 0084). Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 12, above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Volbers (GB 2550593 A) is found to likely disclose all of the limitations of at least claim 1. The Volbers reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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. /JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 2 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 3 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 4 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 5 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 6 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 7 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 8 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 9 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 10 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 11 Art Unit: 3729 Application/Control Number: 18/259,370 Page 12 Art Unit: 3729
Prosecution Insights