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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke et al. ("Calorimetric study and microstructure analysis of the order-disorder phase transformation in silicon steel built by SLM." Journal of Alloys and Compounds 722 (2017): 293-301.) in view of Veronesi et al. (US20140035423A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lemke teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising:
Selective laser melting of Fe-Si high silicon (electrical steel) steel powder by scanning a laser with a scan strategy to build a layer;
Building an object layer by layer (Abstract);
However, Selective laser melting is distinct from directed energy deposition additive manufacturing as claimed and does not involve the simultaneous melting or sintering and depositing of a powder on a substrate; However, Veronesi teaches a method of forming electrical machines with additive manufacturing (abstract) of high silicon steel alloy powder such as by laser deposition [0020] where a LENS (Laser Engineered Net shaping) apparatus, a type of directed energy deposition, may be used to sinter a stack and form a laminated product [0013, 0015, 0030]; LENS by definition, works by simultaneously injecting or depositing metal powder while a laser is focused on a substrate, melting or sintering the powder to form a layer and is widely used for its ability to repair parts, handle large build volumes and use multiple materials. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a direct energy deposition technique such as LENS on the method of Lemke for the purpose of forming a high silicon steel product of complex shape and larger sizes than conventional SLM additive manufacturing. The scanning of the powder streams is considered relative to the substrate and considered a scan strategy.
Regarding Claims 2-3, the FeSi alloy has a Si content of 6.9, greater than 4 and 6% (See Table 1)
Regarding Claims 4-7, heat treatment is done at an annealing temperature; where the annealing temperature may be greater than 500 to recrystallize the microstructure (Order transformation A2 to B2 + DO3) (See Figs 4 and 6); the annealing temperature may be greater than 700 C to form a and ordered B2 phase is predominant (See magnetic transformation in See Figs 4 and 6); and where the annealing may be greater than 900 C to form a disordered A2 structure (A2 is a BCC microstructure) (See Figs 4 and 6)
Regarding Claims 11-13, as the product formed by the prior art and the method used to form the product are substantially identical, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected these properties to be met under the expectation that products formed by similar methods have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
Regarding Claim 14, Veronesi teaches a stator may be formed, a type of electromagnetic core device [0045]
Regarding Claim 15, Veronesi teaches alternating layers of FeSi alloy and insulating layers to provide a stacked lamination [0030, 0037]
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke et al. in view of Veronesi et al. (US20140035423A1) as applied above in further view of Izadi et al. ("A review of laser engineered net shaping (LENS) build and process parameters of metallic parts." Rapid prototyping journal 26.6 (2020): 1059-1078.)
Regarding Claims 8-10, Lemke and Veronesi are silent regarding the LENS scan strategies as claimed, however, Izadi teaches that laser engineered net shaping may have parameters such as laser scan speed and scan strategy (abstract) and teaches that residual stress is a concern with LENS (Section 2.3) and where deposition pattern affects residual stress (Section 3.6) so its default scanning strategy may be one of a cross hatch laser strategy 4, or may be concentric (See (b) and (c) of Fig 6. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking an appropriate scan strategy to minimize residual stress in the object would have been motivated to use cross hatching or concentric laser scanning strategies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lemke, the primary reference, uses selective laser melting and that high cooling rates involved in the scanning process hinders ordering transformation and thus improves the mechanical properties of the materials, and therefore selective laser melting of Lemke is a critical element and can not be modified as done in the rejection.
This is not persuasive, in the examples of Lemke, the cooling can be performed by simply being built (air cooling), furnace cooled, or water quenches (Table 3) and that SLM processing and water-quenching are two effective means to suppress partially the ordering transformation (Conclusions); however, while LENS cooling is considered slower than SLM cooling, the rate of these cooling are considered significantly faster than furnace cooling and water quenching; secondly as LENS cooling is considered to lie between the cooling rate ranges of the prior art, the SLM cooling rate is not considered critical to the prior art invention and an ordinary artisan would not be discouraged from the modifying Lemke with LENS additive manufacturing.
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 RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights