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 .
This office action is a response to the election of species filed on 3/25/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A, claims 1, 2 and 5-15, in the reply filed on 3/25/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/25/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --METHOD OF MANUFACTURING AN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT LAMINATION--.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. Claim 1 and claim 5 are essentially duplicates of one another or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording. It is improper to have two claims which contain the same limitations, in the same application as one claim would be a substantial duplicate of the other claim.
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.
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 2 and 9-15 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.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “the stamped laminates” as recited in lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 9: The phrase “the stamped laminate” as recited in lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 14: The phrase “the stamped laminate” as recited in lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrase “further comprising heating the stamped laminate in the presence of an annealing atmosphere” as recited in lines 1-2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to whether this heating process is performed after the heating process as recited in lines 6-7 of claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerster et al. (US PAT. 8,887,376) in view of Volbers et al. (US PAT. 11,827,961), and further in view of Sieron et al. (US PAT. 11/788,168).
Gerster et al. teach a process of making a stamped lamination for a rotor or stator comprising a step of providing a lamination, the lamination having been produced from a sheet material (col. 2, lines 7-11); heating the lamination in an annealing furnace to produce an annealed lamination (col. 4, lines 4-12 and col. 6, lines 60-62); and forming an oxidation layer on the annealed lamination to produce an oxidized and annealed lamination (col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 3 and col. 7, lines 11-16).
However, Gerster et al. silent a stamp lamination. Volbers et al. teach a process making a stamped lamination by stamping (or punching) from a steel sheet by a stamping die (as per claim 5, col. 21, lines 40-42) follow by joining the sheets (col. 20, lines 50-53 and col. 21, lines 40-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a lamination of Gerster et al. by stamping (or punching) from a steel sheet to form a stamped lamination as taught by Volbers et al. in order to provide a series production for a stamped lamination.
Re. claim 2: Gerster et al. also teach that the oxidized and annealed stamped lamination is configured for use in constructing an electric motor or an electric generator (col. 1, lines 12-20).
Re. claims 6 and 7: Volbers et al. also teach a preheating (8200 C) the stamped lamination follow by final heat (at least 9000 C) treatment (col. 20, lines 43-59).
Re. claim 8: Since the final heat treatment temperature is at least 9000 C in Volbers et al., In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.1.
Re. claim 9: Volbers et al. also teach cooling down the stamped laminate after the second heating to an oxidation temperature (such as in dry hydrogen at a reducing temperature of 8200 C, col. 21, lines 22-28).
Re. claim 10 and 12: Volbers et al. also teach an oxidation temperature is between 35000 C and 5000 C for a time period of 0.5 h to 5h (col. 21, lines 1-2).
Re. claim 11: Gerster et al. also teach that the annealed stamped laminate at the oxidation temperature for a time period and in a presence of an oxidation atmosphere (col. 4, line 65 to col. 4, line 1).
Re. claim 13: Gerster et al., modified by Volbers et al., silent that the oxidation atmosphere causes a layer of Fe3O4 to form on the annealed stamped lamination. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of the oxidation process of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, both Gerster et al. and Volbers et al., discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). The applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Re. claim 14: Gerster et al. also teach that the stamped laminate is heated in the presence of an annealing atmosphere (such as an insert gas, col. 4, lines 5-6).
Re. claim 15: At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inert gas as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the annealing gas as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Gerster et al. because the annealing gas as recited in the claimed invention would perform equally well such as the inert gas in Gerster et al. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the annealing gas of Gerster et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martin et al. (PGPub 2023/0034953 A1), KAMIKAWABATA et al. (PGPub 2022/0028608 A1), and Zhu et al. (US PAT. 12,237,103 B2) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a process for preparing a lamination for use in constructing electrical equipment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights