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 .
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first component and the second component are mutually separated and mutually adjoining”. It is not clear how two components can be separated (i.e. apart) and also adjoining (i.e. together). In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitation will be considered as being separate components (i.e. not intermixed at a microscopic scale so as to be distinct portions) and adjacent (i.e. adjoining).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first component and the second component” in line 8. The change in terminology introduces uncertainty as to the antecedent basis. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed first component will be considered to reference the previously introduced first magnetic material component and the second component will be considered to reference the previously introduced second load-bearing material component.
Claims 11-13 each recite “wherein the component comprises”. However, the base claim (i.e. instant claim 1) recites a sintered metal component, a first magnetic material component, and a second load-bearing component. Therefore, it is not clear which component is referenced by the disputed limited. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitation will be considered to reference the sintered metal component.
Claims 2-10 and 14-15 are rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is summarized below. However, none of these references teach or render obvious all of the claimed limitations.
Badwe (EP 3333275, previously cited) teaches a duplex stainless-steel powder for producing a duplex sintered stainless steel, but does not teach or suggest it being coupled with a first magnetic material component.
Buschbeck et al. (US 2022/0005645) teaches an electrical steel sheet such as for use in electric machines (paragraphs 0002 and 0004). The electrical steel sheet is made by forming a green body on a substrate such as by screen or stencil printing followed by thermally treating the green body (paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0048), and teaches that a sintered electrical steel sheet formed by a printing technique differs in microstructure from an electrical steel sheet made by other methods such as by rolling (paragraph 0045). However, Buschbeck does not teach the instantly claimed proportion of austenite and ferrite phases.
Zhu et al. (US 2020/0079070) teaches an electric machine lamination that includes a sheet formed of an iron alloy at least partially defining adjacent magnet pockets (i.e. the iron alloy is a first magnetic material component) and further including a composition different than the iron alloy which extends between adjacent magnet pockets and form a center bridge having a lower magnetic permeability than the sheet (paragraph 0003). The center bridge holds the part of the lamination beyond the bridges and the magnets under centrifugal load (i.e. the center bridge is a second load-bearing material component). The bridge areas should have reduced magnetic permeability to reduce flux leakage and increase torque density, but other regions should have high permeability to assure a large magnetic induction for high torque density (paragraph 0045). Zhu teaches that forming lamination core through additive manufacturing may alloy for the use of custom compositions, for example, by introducing different powders during the fabrication process at different spatial locations, which allows for strategically modifying physical properties of lamination cores within the 2D lamination plane (paragraph 0049). A first region of a lamination layer can be made with a first powdered metal and a second region of the lamination layer can be made with a second powdered metal (paragraph 0050) and the second region may be disposed adjacent, that is may abut, the first region (paragraph 0052) (i.e. the first component and second component are mutually separated in that they are not intermixed microscale regions and they are mutually adjoining). Zhu teaches that the first region may be an iron-silicon alloy having approximately 0.1-4.5% silicon by weight (paragraph 0050), which may have a higher magnetic permeability and high core loss than the second powdered metal (paragraph 0073) and may have a normal magnetization (paragraph 0068) (i.e. the first region material comprises a ferromagnetic ferrous material). It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that an iron-silicon alloy having a specified amount of silicon would have a balance be substantially iron (i.e. about 95.5-99.9% Fe, which overlaps the range in instant claim 2). The second powdered metal, of the second region, may be a non-ferromagnetic austenite stainless steel which may have a high chromium content, such as Fe68Cr20Ni10Mn1Si0.3 (i.e. an iron-chromium alloy) (paragraphs 0050 and 0056). However, Zhu only discloses an austenite stainless steel and does not recite the instantly claimed proportion of austenitic phase and ferritic phase
Reddy et al. (US 2018/0337565) teaches an AC electric machine includes a stator and a rotor that are substantially concentrically disposed with the rotor being positioned within a stator bore and the rotor can be coupled to a shaft that is configured to rotate about an axis (paragraph 0024). comprising a stack of rotor laminations that collectively form the rotor core, the rotor core including a plurality of rotor poles separated by gaps therebetween (paragraph 0010). However, the electric machine has a singular magnetic phase for the rotor laminations and a dual magnetic phase for a ring or sleeve about the motor (paragraph 0041) and Reddy does not teach the instantly claimed proportion of austenitic phase and ferritic phase.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784