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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 06/15/2026, claims 2 & 13 are cancelled, new claim 21 has been added, and claims 1, 3-12, & 14-21 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant mentions on page 5 that the amended claim 1 recites the limitation “the bulk component being a near-net-shape component and defining a central axis extending in an axial direction” and “slicing the bulk component via electrochemical machining (ECM)”. Applicant argues that Izumi fails to teach a method of electrochemical machining and the bulk being a near-net-shape component. As such, Izumi cannot anticipate the amended claim 1.
Respectfully, the Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive. The new rejection of claim 1 is made, found below, in view of Izumi, and further in view of Herrington and Cui. The combination allows for the disclosure of Herrington, teaching the limitation of slicing via electrochemical machining (EMC), and Cui, teaching the limitation of a near net shape bulk.
Applicant also disagrees with the Office Action’s assertion of features of original claim 2, now recited within independent claim 1. Applicant argues on page 6 that Herrington teaches an ECM tool with a discretized flow electrode designed to improve machining of complex geometries, not for a specific process of slicing large bulk component into a plurality of thin discrete thin laminates. As such, there would not have been motivation to substitute Herrington’s surface machining tool with Izumi’s wire-sawing process.
Respectfully, the Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive. While Herrington teaches the use of electrochemical machining (ECM) to produce complex geometries, the original rejection did not rely on Herrington solely for the workpiece geometry or end product disclosed. Rather, Herrington is relied upon for its teaching that ECM is a well-known material removal technique (¶4 “ECM is known for its high material-removal rate), capable of machining a workpiece. A POSITA would have recognized that the application of ECM is not limited to producing geometries, and extends to precision cutting operations. Izumi teaches of slicing a workpiece via a wire-saw. Thus, a POSITA would have utilized ECM, taught by Herrington, to also perform a similar cutting process as a variation or alternative way of machining said workpiece.
Applicant also argues that the Office Action misinterpreted a prior art reference. While the Applicant claims a thickness of a laminate being 0.5 mm, the Office Action relied on a 0.5 mm dimension of a diameter hole presented in Herrington’s disclosure.
Respectfully, due claim 1 being amended to clarify the direction of the axis through the implementation of originally filed claims 2 and 13, applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Izumi, as detailed below in the rejection of claim 3, infra, discloses a cutting process wherein an iron gallium alloy single crystal is cut, the plate-shaped member having a thickness of 0.5 mm.
Applicant also argues that Cui discloses of producing a bulk shape, by consolidating “discontinuous, flake-shaped particles with an electrically insulating coating, and consolidating the coated flake-shape particles to form a soft magnetic bulk shape”, teaching that the bulk is internally laminated and has no reason to apply Izumi’s slicing step. Applying Izumi’s slicing step would be duplicative and contrary to Cui’s teaching since Cui’s bulk part is designed not to be sliced.
Respectfully, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The reliance of Cui is used solely for its teaching of a near-net-shape bulk magnet. The subsequent slicing operation is taught by Izumi, as modified by the ECM cutting technique of Herrington, who discloses the slicing of a magnetized body.
Lastly, Applicant argues on page 7-8 that Johnson teaches a method of heat-treating additively manufactured ferromagnetic components rather than producing laminates “free from rolling”.
Respectfully, though Johnson does primarily teach the heat-treating application on ferromagnetic components, it also expressly teaches that its heat-treatment process may be applicable to magnets produced by additive manufacturing. A POSITA would have understood that additive manufacturing forms the magnet by successive deposition of material rather than by rolling stock into shape. Therefore, the disclosed additive manufactured embodiment would have produced absent of a rolling process. Furthermore, through MPEP 2121, Johnson reasonably teaches of a manufactured magnet, identified as an additive manufactured magnet, suitable for post-methods such as heat-treatment.
For the reasons explained above, the examiner asserts the position of rejection for claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20. Furthermore, being that newly added claim 21 is dependent on claim 1, claim 21 has also been rejected.
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 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, further in view of Herrington et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20230066556 A1) herein after Herrington, and further in view of Cui et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20190304647 A1) herein after Cui.
Regarding 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 defining a central axis extending in 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
PNG
media_image2.png
403
353
media_image2.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”).
However, Izumi fails to disclose the method comprising of the bulk component being a near-net-shape component, slicing the bulk component via electrochemical machining (ECM).
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 (Herrington ¶4).
However, both Izumi and Herrington fail to disclose the method comprising of the bulk component being a near-net-shape component.
Cui discloses (Title: Near Net Shape Bulk Laminated Silicon Iron Electric Steel For Improved Electrical Resistance And Low High Frequency Loss) a method 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”).
Izumi discloses the method of manufacturing soft magnetic thin laminates and cutting the bulk component by using a wire saw. Herrington discloses an alternative method of slicing a body via electrochemical machining to form the thin laminates from various bulk component bodies of compositions. Cui discloses of a magnet that has produced into a near net shape bulk laminated steels. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that by producing the soft magnetic bulk structure into the near net shape soft magnetic bulk, the method would remove excess stress within the bulk that would cause performance degradation in the magnetic flux as well as reduce needed machining to remove said stress (Cui ¶7).
Regarding claim 3, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and 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).
Furthermore, Izumi discloses a method (cutting process, p. 12, ll. 24) wherein 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 (p. 13, ll. 6, “Then, 210 plate-shaped members of an iron gallium alloy single crystal having a thickness of 100 mm × 50 mm × 0.5 mm were obtained. The thickness of the plate-shaped member was within 0.5 ± 0.01 mm”).
While Herrington discloses the channels being capable of having a dimension of 0.5 mm, Izumi teaches that the cut-out plurality of magnetic laminates to be 0.5 mm. (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 3 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
PNG
media_image3.png
560
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
473
805
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Izumi further discloses wherein the bulk component is a single-material bulk component (single crystal ingot of an Iron gallium alloy, p. 2, ll. 7).
(Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 4 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Regarding claim 5, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 4, as detailed above, and Izumi further discloses the method wherein the single-material bulk component is solidified in the axial direction during investment casting (growing, p. 5, ll. 30-31).
(Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 5 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Regarding claim 6, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 4, as detailed above, and Cui further teaches a method 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”; Cui further discloses in ¶25 that allowing for various material choices would alter the cost to manufacture and the soft magnetic thin laminate’s physical properties).
(Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 6 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Regarding claim 7, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 6, as detailed above, and 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 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 7 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Regarding claim 8, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and 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 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 8 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Regarding claim 9, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and 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 the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 9 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Regarding claim 10, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 9, as detailed above, and 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 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 9 in the manner of producing a near-net-shape bulk component of soft magnetic material).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Herrington 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, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 8, as detailed above, and 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, all 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 combination of Izumi, Herrington, 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 (Novak p. 6, ll. 22-24).
Regarding claim 12, Izumi, in view of Herrington, Cui, and Novak, teaches the method of claim 11, as detailed above, and 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 manner of utilizing a composition of an FeAl20Si20 alloy to reduce structural brittleness of intermetallics).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, and further in view of Soma et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20210242732 A1) herein after Soma.
Regarding claim 14, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all 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 method of the combination of Izumi, Herrington, and Cui’s wire cutting and electrochemical machining, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to conclude that such a method would result in an alternative method of shaping a bulk component and slicing the laminates from the bulk component to form portions of the electric machine. Regarding 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 and applied it to 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 (Soma ¶7).
Claims 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, and further in view of Decristofaro et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20040150285 A1) herein after Decristofaro.
Regarding claim 15, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all fail 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
Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, discloses the method of producing and slicing 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, forming a rotor or stator. One of ordinary skill would also understand that the method as claimed is a variation of manufacturing compared to the original, commonly used, method of manufacturing an electrical machine via stamping/punching out the laminates, as taught by Decristofaro. 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 (Decristofaro ¶11).
Regarding claim 19, Izumi discloses a method (Title: Processing Method of Single Crystal Ingot of Iron Gallium Alloy) of manufacturing an electric machine, 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 defining a central axis extending in 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
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”).
However, Izumi fails to disclose the method comprising of the bulk component being a near-net-shape component, slicing the bulk component via electrochemical machining (ECM), and assembling the plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates to form at least a portion of the electric machine.
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 (Herrington ¶4).
However, both Izumi and Herrington fail to disclose the method comprising of the bulk component being a near-net-shape component and assembling the plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates to form at least a portion of the electric machine.
Cui discloses (Title: Near Net Shape Bulk Laminated Silicon Iron Electric Steel For Improved Electrical Resistance And Low High Frequency Loss) a method 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”).
Izumi discloses the method of manufacturing soft magnetic thin laminates and cutting the bulk component by using a wire saw. Herrington discloses an alternative method of slicing a body via electrochemical machining to form the thin laminates from various bulk component bodies of compositions. Cui discloses of a magnet that has produced into a near net shape bulk laminated steels. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that by producing the soft magnetic bulk structure into the near net shape soft magnetic bulk, the method would remove excess stress within the bulk that would cause performance degradation in the magnetic flux as well as reduce needed machining to remove said stress (Cui ¶7).
However, all fail to disclose the method comprising the 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).
PNG
media_image7.png
479
631
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, discloses the method of producing and slicing 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, forming a rotor or stator. One of ordinary skill would also understand that the method as claimed is a variation of manufacturing compared to the original, commonly used, method of manufacturing an electrical machine via stamping/punching out the laminates, as taught by Decristofaro. 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 (Decristofaro ¶11).
Regarding claim 21, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all fail to disclose wherein the near-net shape component is substantially the same shape as the end use component of an 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 a near-net shape component that is substantially the same shape as the end use component of the electric machine an 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 21 in the manner of substituting the manufacturing process of stators and rotors with wire cutting to avoid causing the bulk material to be subjected to high amounts of stress).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, and further in view of Johnson et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 20210197273 A1) herein after Johnson.
Regarding claim 16, Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above.
However, all fail 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
Izumi, in view of Herrington and Cui, discloses the method of producing and slicing a near-net-shape component bulk of soft magnetic material. Johnson discloses the method of producing a magnetic component having a unitary structure via additive manufacturing. 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, Herrington, and Cui’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 (Johnson ¶45).
Regarding claim 17, Izumi, in view of Herrington, Cui, and Johnson, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Johnson further 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”; A POSITA would have recognized that the heat treatment step could occur before/during/after the additive manufacturing step to the material before applying Izumi’s method of cutting the bulk into a plurality of laminates).
(Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 16, supra, as it is applicable to claim 17 in the manner of additively manufacturing a magnetic body).
Regarding claim 18, Izumi, in view of Herrington, Cui, and Johnson, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Johnson 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 claim 16, supra, as it is applicable to claim 18 in the manner of additively manufacturing a magnetic body. Also refer to the section “response to argument” regarding why Johnson teaches a free from rolling magnet).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Johnson, and further in view of Cui.
Regarding claim 20, 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 defining a central axis extending in 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
However, Izumi fails to disclose a method manufacturing a plurality of soft magnetic thin laminates wherein the bulk component is a near-net-shaped component. Izumi also fails to disclose that one or more of the plurality of 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).
Izumi discloses the method of producing and slicing a near-net-shape component bulk of soft magnetic material. Johnson discloses the method of producing a magnetic component having a unitary structure via additive manufacturing. 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 (Johnson ¶45). (Also refer to the section “response to argument” regarding why Johnson teaches a free from rolling magnet).
However, both Izumi and Johnson fail to disclose the method comprising of the bulk component being a near-net-shape component.
Cui discloses (Title: Near Net Shape Bulk Laminated Silicon Iron Electric Steel For Improved Electrical Resistance And Low High Frequency Loss) a method 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”).
Izumi discloses the method of manufacturing soft magnetic thin laminates and cutting the bulk component by using a wire saw. Johnson discloses a method of producing a body via additive manufacturing to form the magnetic bulk component. Cui discloses of a magnet that has produced into a near net shape bulk laminated steels. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that by producing the soft magnetic bulk structure into the near net shape soft magnetic bulk, the method would remove excess stress within the bulk that would cause performance degradation in the magnetic flux as well as reduce needed machining to remove said stress (Cui ¶7).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights