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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Election/Restriction requirement in the reply filed on 07/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is found persuasive, the Election/Restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to be grammatically incorrect in citing “wherein the distribution for the number of magnetic materials based on volume fractions for the number of magnetic materials using the force profile.” There appears to a missing linking verb such as “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 22, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huber et al. (“3D Printing of Polymer-Bonded Rare-Earth Magnets With a Variable Magnetic Compound Fraction for a Predefined Stray Field”).
Claim 1, Huber et al. discloses an apparatus [polymer bonded-magnet; abs], comprising: a number of magnetic materials [Hard magnetic particles, ferrite (e.g., Sr, Ba), and rare-earth materials (e.g., NdFeB); last paragraph of the Introduction Section] distributed in the apparatus according to a magnetic property profile and a force profile comprising information associated with a number of forces acting on the number of magnetic materials [polymer-bonded permanent magnets with a variable magnetic compound fraction ϱ along them printing direction; Introduction Section], wherein the magnetic property profile comprises magnetic properties that are associated with the number of forces in the force profile for the number of magnetic materials, [polymer-bonded magnet with a variable magnetic field optimized for a given target field; last paragraph of the Introduction Section] and wherein the magnetic property profile comprises local magnetic properties for the number of magnetic materials, and wherein the local magnetic properties for the number of magnetic materials comprise physical characteristics and chemical characteristics that contribute to performance of the number of magnetic materials [1st paragraph; Stray Field Simulation, Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction; Figures 1 and 2].
Claim 4, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of magnetic materials comprise at least one of paramagnetic material, diamagnetic material, and ferromagnetic material [Methods - Filament Manufacturing and Results - Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction].
Claim 5, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of magnetic materials comprise ferromagnetic particles suspended in a polymer matrix to form a ferromagnetic composite for the apparatus [Abstract; Methods - Material Characterization and Results - Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction].
Claim 6, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distribution of magnetic materials is configured to form gradients in one dimension, two dimensions, or three dimensions [Results - Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction], and wherein the distribution of magnetic materials create force profiles in one dimension two dimensions, or three dimensions [Results, Inverse Problem; Figures 2-4].
Claim 7, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein volume fraction distribution of magnetic materials is configured to facilitate the magnetic property profile [Results - Inverse Problem, Results - Predefined Stray Field; Figures 2 and 3].
Claim 10, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein distribution of magnetic material is configured to follow a single sawtooth, a double sawtooth, a multistep function, quadratic function, or a linear function along a path [figures 1(c), 3(b)-3(c); Results - Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction and Results - Reconstructed Magnetization].
Claim 22, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distribution for the number of magnetic materials based on volume fractions for the number of magnetic materials using the force profile [Abstract; Results - Inverse Problem, Equation (4)].
Claim 24. Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of magnetic materials is distributed by varying feed ratios of filaments of different materials into a hotend [disclose an apparatus comprising magnetic materials distributed according to a magnetic property profile fabricated via fused filament fabrication, see Title, Abstract and p.1, section: “Methods-Printer”, p.2, section: “Results-Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction”; pp. 3-4]. Huber discloses that the spatial distribution of the magnetic compound fraction is produced by feeding two different filaments into a single dual feed mixing hotend, wherein the local compound fraction is controlled by varying the relative feed speeds and feed ratios of the filaments into the hotend during deposition [section: “Methods-Printer”, p.2; Section: “Results – Predefined Magnetic Compound Fraction”, p.3].
Claim 26, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is generated using additive manufacturing [Abstract].
Claim 27, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the distribution of magnetic materials is configured to form gradients in a cylinder shape or a circular shape [Results - Predefined Stray Field.; figures 3(a), 3(b) and 3(e)].
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.
Claims 2, 3, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (“3D Printing of Polymer-Bonded Rare-Earth Magnets With a Variable Magnetic Compound Fraction for a Predefined Stray Field”) in view of Tang [US 7741750].
Claim 2, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, the fabrication of a graded permanent magnet but fails to teach a number of supporting devices located adjacent to the apparatus, wherein the number of supporting devices applies forces on the apparatus, and wherein the applied forces on the apparatus comprise at least one of mechanical force or magnetic force.
Tang teaches an electromechanical machine comprising a permanent magnet rotor elements supported by mechanical bearings stator electromagnets, springs and permanent magnets [col. 3 lines 10-45, col. 5 lines 22-60; figures 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the permanent magnet of Huber et al. with the electromechanical machine of Tang in order to minimize torque ripple since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 3, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 2, the fabrication of a graded permanent magnet but fails to teach that the number of supporting devices comprise at least one of permanent magnets, electromagnets, springs, and bearings.
Tang teaches an electromechanical machine comprising a permanent magnet rotor elements supported by mechanical bearings stator electromagnets, springs and permanent magnets [col. 3 lines 10-45, col. 5 lines 22-60; figures 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the permanent magnet of Huber et al. with the electromechanical machine of Tang in order to minimize torque ripple since a simple substitution of one known element for another, producing a predictable result, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 21, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, with the exception of the force profile correlates to varying magnetic properties in an electromechanical system.
Tang teaches an electromechanical machine comprising correlating permanent magnet flux distributions to rotational torque and back EMF load forces within an electromechanical system [col. 4 lines 30-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the graded magnet of Huber et al. and the electromechanical system as taught by Tang in order to improve system performance by using a tailored spactial magnetic flux distribution increase efficiency and reduce mechanical vibration.
Claim 25, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1, with the exception the apparatus is used for in a motor to alter magnetic field for reducing torque ripple.
Tang teaches an electromechanical machine comprising configuring and shaping the air-gap magnetic flux density profile across a motor to suppress spatial harmonics in order to eliminate cogging torque and reduce torque ripple [col. 2 lines 15-50, col. 6 lines 5-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the graded magnet of Huber et al. and the electromechanical system as taught by Tang in order to improve motor efficiency and reduce mechanical vibration by suppressing harmonic flux distortions from parasitic cogging torque and ripple torque.
Claims 8, 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (“3D Printing of Polymer-Bonded Rare-Earth Magnets With a Variable Magnetic Compound Fraction for a Predefined Stray Field”)
Claim 8, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the number of magnetic materials comprise ferromagnetic material [col. 3 lines 1-3], but fails to teach that the ferromagnetic material have a geometry that varies in topology or porosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the composition of the ferromagnetic material in order to adjust the resulting properties of the magnetic field since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 9, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the number of magnetic materials comprise ferromagnetic material [col. 3 lines 1-3], but fails to teach that the ferromagnetic material has a truss-lattice geometry that varies in density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the structure of the ferromagnetic material in order to adjust the resulting properties of the magnetic field since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 23, Huber et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the number of magnetic materials comprise ferromagnetic material [col. 3 lines 1-3], but fails to teach that the volume fractions for the number of magnetic materials comprises concentration of magnetic particles and voids in a material structure for the number of magnetic materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the structure of the ferromagnetic material in order to adjust the resulting properties of the magnetic field since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection(s) of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huber et al. (“3D Printing of Polymer-Bonded Rare-Earth Magnets With a Variable Magnetic Compound Fraction for a Predefined Stray Field”) as applied above.
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 Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights