Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “axial direction” and “radial direction” in independent claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “axial direction” and “radial direction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Although the specification may describe the axial direction as a direction parallel to a centerline of the gas turbine engine, claim 1 does not recite a structure nor anchor to which the axial direction is bound to. As for the radial direction, claim 1 does not recite a cylindrical, circular, or rotational structure relative to which the radius may be defined to. The term requires a center point or axis from which the radial direction extends. For the same reasons, dependent claims 2-18 and Independent claim 19 which recites both the axial and radial directions are rejected. Similarly, independent claim 20 recites the term axial direction, so it is rejected for the same reason as well.
The terms “solidified in the axial direction” and “during investment casting” in dependent claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “solidified in the axial direction” is naturally expected as casting a bulk component would result in the body solidifying in all directions three-dimensionally. The term “during investment casting” is not defined as a claimed step. It is therefore unclear whether casting is a required step of the claimed method or additional limiting language. Because of this uncertain relationship, it is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the multi-material bulk component” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and claim 1, in which both claims don’t recite the limiting term. For the same reasons, claim 12 is rejected for being dependent on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Izumi (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2022045089 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Izumi discloses a method (Title: Processing Method of Single Crystal Ingot of Iron Gallium Alloy) of manufacturing soft magnetic thin laminates (plate shape, p. 2, ll. 23, “When cutting an iron-gallium alloy ingot into a plate shape”), the method comprising:
producing a bulk component (iron-gallium alloy, p. 2, ll. 23) comprising a soft magnetic material (magnetostrictive material, p. 2, ll. 16-17), the bulk component extending an axial direction (growing direction in annotated FIG. 2 below, p. 5, ll. 30-31, “FIG. 2 is a perspective view showing a shape example of a crucible and a seed crystal for growing a cylindrical single crystal ingot according to a comparative example”); and
PNG
media_image1.png
472
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
slicing the bulk component in a radial direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, to produce a plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates (FIG. 4D, p. 8, ll. 38-39, “After obtaining the first (100) plane and the second (100) plane of the fixed diameter portion 20c, the fixed diameter portion is along the growth axis so that the cut surface is parallel to the second (100) plane”).
PNG
media_image2.png
403
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Izumi further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bulk component is a single-material bulk component (single crystal ingot of an Iron gallium alloy, p. 2, ll. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Izumi further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the single-material bulk component is solidified in the axial direction during investment casting (growing, p. 5, ll. 30-31,).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, and further in view of Herrington et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20230066556 A1) herein after Herrington.
Regarding claim 2, Izumi discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Izumi fails to teach or suggest the method wherein the slicing is via electrochemical machining.
Herrington teaches a method (Title: Methods, Systems, and Apparatuses for Performing Electrochemical Machining Using Discretized Electrolyte Flow) wherein the slicing is via electrochemical machining (¶4).
Though Izumi discloses the method of cutting the bulk component by using a wire saw to form the thin laminates, it would have been an obvious alternative to use electrochemical machining as disclosed by Herrington. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the machining means taught by Herrington to the method from Izumi’s disclosure would have yielded predictable results, allowing for improved quality of laminates due to the high material removal rate, superior surface quality, non-contacting processing, and the ability to operate on many challenging alloys of electrochemical machining (¶4).
Regarding claim 3, Izumi in view of Herrington teaches the method of claim 2, as detailed above. Herrington further teaches that each of the plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates has a thickness in the axial direction of less than or equal to 0.5 mm (FIG. 5 and FIG. 12, ¶68, “The channels 1212 in the electrolyte exit grid are rectangular, with a 0.5 mm width and 2 mm depth”, electrical machining is capable to machining a body to an accuracy of 0.5mm or less). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 2, supra, as it is applicable to claim 3 in the same manner).
PNG
media_image3.png
560
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
473
805
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, and further in view of Cui et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20190304647 A1) herein after Cui.
Regarding claim 6, Izumi discloses the method of claim 4.
However, Izumi fails to teach or suggest the method wherein the bulk component comprises a steel comprising from 3.0 to 7.0 weight percent silicon.
Cui teaches a method (Title: Near Net Shape Bulk Laminated Silicon Iron Electric Steel For Improved Electrical Resistance And Low High Frequency Loss) wherein the bulk component comprises a steel comprising from 3.0 to 7.0 weight percent silicon (¶25, “the silicon content is relatively high compared to hot/cold rolled iron silicon electrical steel, such as for example in the range of about 5 to about 6.5 weight % Si”).
Though Izumi discloses the method of cutting the bulk component by using a wire saw, and Herrington’s alternative method of slicing via electrochemical machining, to form the thin laminates from various bulk component bodies of compositions, namely, the iron-gallium alloy ingot, it would have been obvious to apply such methods to a specific body composition of high-silicon steels of 6.5 wt% silicon from Cui’s disclosure. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the composition taught by Cui to the method from Izumi’s disclosure would have yielded predictable results, allowing for various material choices to alter the cost to manufacture and the soft magnetic thin laminate’s physical properties (¶25)
Regarding claim 7, Izumi in view of Cui teaches the method of claim 6, as detailed above. Cui further teaches that the bulk component comprises Fe-6.5Si (¶25, “the silicon content is relatively high compared to hot/cold rolled iron silicon electrical steel, such as for example in the range of about 5 to about 6.5 weight % Si”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to claim 7 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 8, Izumi in view of Cui teaches the method of claim 6, as detailed above. Cui further teaches that the bulk component is a multi-material bulk component (¶25, “these soft magnetic materials and can embody soft magnetic materials that include, but are not limited to, other Fe based metal alloys, Ni based metal alloys, or Co based metal alloys or Fe, Ni, or Co containing ferrites”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to claim 8 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 9, Izumi in view of Cui teaches the method of claim 6, as detailed above. Cui further teaches that the soft magnetic material has an intrinsic coercivity of less than 1,000 Am-1 (¶25, “soft magnetic materials are those that are easily magnetized and de-magnetized and typically exhibit an intrinsic coercivity less than 1000 Am.sup.−1.”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to claim 9 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 10, Izumi in view of Cui teaches the method of claim 6, as detailed above. Cui further teaches that the soft magnetic material comprises an iron cobalt alloy, an iron silicon alloy, or a combination thereof (¶25, “a suitable iron or steel composition, which can be selected from at least one of pure iron and iron alloys that include, but are not limited to, iron-silicon alloys especially iron-high silicon alloys, iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to claim 10 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 13, Izumi in view of Cui teaches the method of claim 6, as detailed above. Cui further teaches that wherein producing the bulk component comprises producing a near-net-shape bulk component (¶23, “The flake-shaped particles are consolidated to produce a soft magnetic bulk shape that includes, but is not limited to, a flat or non-flat layer, a simple 3D shape, and a complex 3D shape as a desired near net shape magnet part”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 6, supra, as it is applicable to claim 13 in the same manner).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi and Cui, and further in view of Novak et al (article: Structure and Properties of Fe-Al-Si Alloy Prepared by Mechanical Alloying; Published: 2 August 2019) herein after Novak.
Regarding claim 11, Izumi and Cui teach the method of claim 9, as detailed above. Cui further teaches multi-material bulk component (¶25, “these soft magnetic materials and can embody soft magnetic materials that include, but are not limited to, other Fe based metal alloys, Ni based metal alloys, or Co based metal alloys or Fe, Ni, or Co containing ferrites”).
However, Izumi and Cui fail to teach or suggest the method further comprises a non-magnetic alloy having a yield strength greater than or equal to 70 ksi at room temperature.
Novak teaches a non-magnetic alloy having a yield strength greater than or equal to 70 ksi at room temperature (p. 6, ll. 19-21, “The mechanical properties of the FeAl20Si20 alloy are summarized in Table 3. At room temperature, the alloy exhibits yield strength (YS) and ultimate compressive strength (UCS) of 1071 and 1085 MPa, respectively”).
To provide the bulk component to have a yield strength greater or equal to 70 ksi at room temperature, rather than any combination of heterogeneous or homogeneous bulk compositions, namely, the high-silicon steels and iron-gallium alloys, would have been obvious when applying the methods of Izumi and Cui to compositions with specific physical properties. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the composition of the FeAl20Si20 alloy taught by Novak to the method from Izumi and Cui’s disclosure would have yielded predictable results, allowing to achieve structure refinement by mechanical alloying and to reduce room temperature brittleness of intermetallics (p. 6, ll. 22-24).
Regarding claim 12, Izumi and Cui teaches the method of claim 9, as detailed above. Cui further teaches the non-magnetic alloy comprises a nickel-based alloy or an iron-based alloy (¶25, “ a suitable iron or steel composition, which can be selected from at least one of pure iron and iron alloys that include, but are not limited to, iron-silicon alloys especially iron-high silicon alloys, iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys… these soft magnetic materials and can embody soft magnetic materials that include, but are not limited to, other Fe based metal alloys, Ni based metal alloys, or Co based metal alloys or Fe, Ni, or Co containing ferrites”, Cui discloses that the pure iron and iron alloys may embody several soft magnetic materials, but not limited to, those listed). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 11, supra, as it is applicable to claim 12 in the same manner).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi and Cui, and further in view of Soma et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20210242732 A1) herein after Soma.
Regarding claim 14, Izumi and Cui teach the method of claim 13, as detailed above. Cui further teaches wherein the bulk component is a near-net-shape bulk component.
However, Izumi and Cui fail to teach or suggest a method that the near-net-shape bulk component comprises a toroidal body surrounding a hollow core that extends in the axial direction, and wherein at least a first flux barrier gap and a second flux barrier gap are arranged in a V-shaped orientation.
Soma teaches a method (Title: Rotor of Rotating Electrical Machine and Arc Magnet Manufacturing Method) wherein the bulk (rotor core 20 in FIG 1, ¶35 “The rotor core 20 has a rotor shaft hole 21 concentric with the annular center CL”) comprises a toroidal body surrounding a hollow core that extends in the axial direction (rotor shaft hole 21 in FIG. 1, ¶35, the shape of the rotor is a cylinder with a hole running through the center to create a ring-shaped solid, or a toroidal body), and
PNG
media_image5.png
668
581
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein at least a first flux barrier gap (first inner diameter side arc magnet 821 in FIG. 1, ¶51, “the magnetic flux due to the first inner diameter side arc magnet 821 and the second inner diameter side arc magnet 822 and the outer diameter side arc magnet 810 is easily concentrated on the d-axis”) and a second flux barrier gap (second inner diameter side arc magnet 822 in FIG. 1, ¶51) are arranged in a V-shaped orientation (d-axis in FIG. 1, ¶51).
The device being manufactured, as claimed by this method, would result in an electrical machine, such as a rotor or stator. By implementing the methods of Izumi and Cui of wire cutting and electrochemical machining, it would be obvious that to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, would be able to conclude that this would be an alternative method of shaping a bulk component and slicing the laminates from the bulk component to form portions of the electric machine. As for the hollow core and flux barrier gap, it would have also been obvious by one of ordinary skill that applying the manufacturing method of a toroidal body and a V-shaped flux barrier gap orientation taught by Soma by using the method from Izumi and Cui’s disclosure would have yielded predictable results, allowing for manufacturing of a rotor of a rotating electrical machine as well as to suppress an increase in size while reducing the manufacturing cost of said electrical machine (¶7).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, and in view of Decristofaro et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20040150285 A1) herein after Decristofaro.
Regarding claim 15, Izumi teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, Izumi fails to teach or suggest a method wherein the plurality, of soft magnetic laminates, is a plurality of rotor laminates or stator laminates.
Decristofaro teaches a method (Title: Low Core Loss Amorphous Metal Magnetic Components For Electric Motors) wherein the plurality of soft magnetic laminates (plurality of laminations 20 in FIG. 3A, ¶43) are a plurality of rotor laminates or stator laminates (¶4, “Both the stator and the rotor are made from stacked laminations”).
PNG
media_image6.png
255
513
media_image6.png
Greyscale
While Izumi only discloses the slicing method of a bulk component to achieve a plurality of magnetic laminates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply such a method to a bulk component to form laminates of an electric machine, namely in this configuration as explained above in claim 14 to form a rotor or stator. One of ordinary skill would also understand that the method as claimed is an alternative method of manufacturing compared to the original, commonly used, method of manufacturing an electrical machine via punching out the laminates. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the stator and its plurality of stacked laminations method of Decristofaro to the method from Izumi’s disclosure would have yielded predictable results, allowing the manufacturing process of stators and rotors to be substituted with wire cutting to avoid causing the bulk material to be subjected to high amounts of stress, resulting in the magnetic flux to reduce, magnetic losses to be greater, and overall reduced efficiency (¶11).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi and Herrington, and further in view of Decristofaro.
Regarding independent claim 19, the combination of Izumi and Herrington discloses a method of manufacturing an electric machine as explained above, the method comprising:
producing a bulk component (Izumi; iron-gallium alloy, p. 2, ll. 23) comprising a soft magnetic material (Izumi; magnetostrictive material, p. 2, ll. 16-17), the bulk component extending an axial direction (Izumi; growing direction in annotated FIG. 2, p. 5, ll. 30-31);
slicing the bulk component via electrochemical machining (Herrington; ¶4) in a radial direction, perpendicular to the axial direction, to produce a plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates (Izumi; FIG. 4D, p. 8, ll. 38-39).
However, Izumi and Herrington fail to teach or suggest the method comprising a step of assembling the plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates to form at least a portion of the electric machine.
Decristofaro teaches a method (Title: Low Core Loss Amorphous Metal Magnetic Components For Electric Motors) comprising a step of assembling the plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates to form at least a portion of the electric machine (¶5, “The aforesaid punching and stacking methods are widely used for constructing rotors and stators for radial flux motors”, FIG. 4 depicts the stacking of magnetic laminates).(Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 15, supra, as it is applicable to claim 12 in the same manner).
PNG
media_image7.png
341
401
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, and further in view of Johnson et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20210197273 A1) herein after Johnson.
Regarding claim 16, Izumi teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, Izumi fails to teach or suggest the method wherein the bulk component is produced via additive manufacturing.
Johnson teaches method (Title: Methods of Heat-Treating Additively Manufactured Ferromagnetic Components) wherein the bulk component (three-dimensional component 140 in FIG. 1, ¶23) is produced via additive manufacturing (additive manufacturing system 100 in FIG. 1, ¶23).
PNG
media_image8.png
494
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Though Izumi discloses the method of growing the iron-gallium alloy ingot in a crystallized direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an alternative way of forming the magnetic bulk component could be done via additive manufacturing, as disclosed by Johnson. Thus, it would have been obvious to implement said additive manufacturing when forming the bulk component, allowing for microstructures within the bulk to obtain specific physical properties and microstructures for various grain sizes, phase stabilities, and grain textures for electromagnetic applications (¶18).
Regarding claim 17, Izumi teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, Izumi fails to teach or suggest the method further comprising heat treating the bulk component prior to slicing the bulk component.
Johnson teaches the method further comprising heat treating the bulk component prior to slicing the bulk component (¶26, “an additively-manufactured ferromagnetic component that has been subjected to at least one additional heat treatment step during, or, after the completion of the additive manufacturing process”, Though Johnson doesn’t mention further modification of the bulk ferromagnetic component, the heat treatment step may occur during the additive manufacturing step before applying Izumi’s method of cutting the bulk into a plurality of laminates).
Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the additive manufacturing method including the heat treatment procedures on the additively-manufactured ferromagnetic components of Johnson to the method from Izumi’s disclosure would have yielded predictable results, allowing for required combinations of ferromagnetic properties such as high saturation flux density, higher relative permeability, and lower hysteresis losses to be attained (¶45). (Additionally, please refer to claim 16 for another rationale to combine references, supra, as it is applicable to claim 17 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 18, Izumi teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above. Izumi further discloses the method, wherein the plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates are produced free from rolling (¶20, “a method of heat-treating an additively-manufactured ferromagnetic component”, the bulk is produced by additive manufacturing and heat-treatment). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claims 16 and 17, supra, as it is applicable to claim 18 in the same manner).
Regarding independent claim 20, Izumi discloses a method of manufacturing (Title: Processing Method of Single Crystal Ingot of Iron Gallium Alloy) a plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates (plate shape, p. 2, ll. 23), the method comprising:
producing a bulk component (iron-gallium alloy, p. 2, ll. 23) comprising a soft magnetic material (magnetostrictive material, p. 2, ll. 16-17), the bulk component extending an axial direction (growing direction in annotated FIG. 2 below, p. 5, ll. 30-31); and
PNG
media_image1.png
472
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
produce one or more soft magnetic thin laminates from the bulk component (FIG. 4D, p. 8, ll. 38-39, laminates are produced from the bulk via cutting),
PNG
media_image2.png
403
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Izumi fails to teach or suggest a method of manufacturing a plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates wherein the one or more soft magnetic thin laminates are produced free from rolling.
Johnson teaches a method of manufacturing a plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates wherein the one or more soft magnetic thin laminates are produced free from rolling (¶20, “a method of heat-treating an additively-manufactured ferromagnetic component”, the bulk is produced by additive manufacturing and heat-treatment). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claims 16 and 17, supra, as it is applicable to claim 20 in the same manner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729