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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 3/2/2018. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2018/007930 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 6, 14, and 17 and canceled Claim 12 in the response filed on 10/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-11 and 13-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Sakuma does not teach a main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase, and a majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase due to Sakuma’s FIGS. 3B and 3C.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In Fig. 1A, Sakuma demonstrates that the main phase (10) is continuously surrounded by a particle sub phase (20) ([0043] and [0061]). Sakuma teaches that the sub phase (20) isolates individual crystal grain of the main phase [0069]. As disclosed in paragraph [0077], a plurality of sub-phases (20) are caused to surround the surface of the main phase (10). As disclosed in paragraph [0094], the plurality of sub phases (20) are caused to surround the surface of the main phase as closely together as possible to enhance magnetization. Based on these numerous teachings, the Examiner deems that Sakuma teaches the argued limitation.
It is further noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed....” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 and 13-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6475302 (“Mei et al.”), in view of WO 2018123988 (“Nishiuchi et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20170178772 (“Sakuma et al.”).
The subject matter sought is substantially covered by the subject matter in the Mei et al. Mei et al., however, do not teach explicitly teach the atomic ratio between R and Y (i.e. (R1-xYx)a, wherein x is 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8) and the specifics of the claimed sub phase.
Nishiuchi et al. teaches a magnetic material having a ThMn12 crystal main phase, wherein the magnetic material has a composition represented by R11-xR2x(Fe1-yCoy)w-zTiz, where R1 is Y, R2 is Sm, and x is within the range of 0 < x < 1.0 (Abstract, [0017], and [0033]). Example 6 in Nishiuchi et al. also discloses Y0.2Sm0.8(Fe0.8Co0.2)11.5Ti0.5 composition [0072], which is converted to Y1.538Sm6.154Fe70.769Co17.692Ti3.846 in atomic percent. This equates to having x=0.2, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s R and Y have an atomic ratio as claimed in order to obtain a magnetic material with increase magnetic anisotropy energy and stabilize the ThMn12 crystal phase [0027].
Sakuma et al. teaches a magnetic material comprising a sub phase (20) that completely surrounds a main phase (10), which isolates the main phases from each other. Sakuma et al. further teaches sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases, wherein the particle phases have a grain diameter of 1 nm to 3 µm (Abstract, Fig. 1A, [0069], [0077], and [0087]). Therefore, the Examiner deems that Sakuma et al. teaches a main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase, and a majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase in order to isolate the individual crystal grain main phase and to enhance the coercivity ([0069], [0073], [0077], [0086], and [0087]).
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 1-11 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 6475302 (“Mei et al.”), in view of WO 2018123988 (“Nishiuchi et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20170178772 (“Sakuma et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 14, Mei et al. teaches a magnetic material substantially overlapping the claimed composition of (R1-xYx)aMbTcDd, where R is at least one element selected from the group consisting of rare-earth elements, M is Fe or Fe and Co, T is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, and W, D is at least on element selected from the group of Cu and Sn, a is a number satisfying 4≤a≤20 atomic percent, b is a number satisfying b=100-a-c-d atomic percent, c is a number satisfying 0<c<7 atomic percent, and d is a number satisfying 0.01≤d≤7 atomic percent. Mei et al. teaches the magnetic material comprising a main phase having a ThMn12 crystal phase, and a sub phase having at least one phase selected from the group consisting of a first phase containing 40 atomic percent or more of Cu and a second phase containing 25 atomic percent or more of Sn (Abstract, Col. 3: Line 55 to Col. 5: Line 12, Col. 10: Line 50 bridging over to Col. 11: Line 6, and Tables 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Mei et al. broadly teaches element R is at least one rare earth element including Y, wherein it is desirable for Sm to constitute at least 50% of the element R (Abstract and Col. 5: Lines 37-51). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a 1:1 ratio (i.e. x=0.5) of Sm:Y, for example, to achieve a magnetic material with high crystalline magnetic anisotropy (Col. 5: Lines 45). Mei et al., however, does not explicitly teach the atomic ratio between R and Y (i.e. (R1-xYx)a, wherein x is 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8).
While Mei et al. teaches the main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase (Col. 2: Lines 48-52 and Example 1), the Examiner acknowledges that Mei et al. does not explicitly teach the sub phase includes a particle phase as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase.
Nishiuchi et al. teaches a magnetic material having a ThMn12 crystal main phase, wherein the magnetic material has a composition represented by R11-xR2x(Fe1-yCoy)w-zTiz, where R1 is Y, R2 is Sm, and x is within the range of 0 < x < 1.0 (Abstract, [0017], and [0033]). Example 6 in Nishiuchi et al. also discloses Y0.2Sm0.8(Fe0.8Co0.2)11.5Ti0.5 composition [0072], which is converted to Y1.538Sm6.154Fe70.769Co17.692Ti3.846 in atomic percent. This equates to having x=0.2, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s R and Y have an atomic ratio as claimed in order to obtain a magnetic material with increase magnetic anisotropy energy and stabilize the ThMn12 crystal phase [0027].
Sakuma et al. teaches a magnetic material comprising a sub phase (20) that completely surrounds a main phase (10), which isolates the main phases from each other. Sakuma et al. further teaches sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases, wherein the particle phases have a grain diameter of 1 nm to 3 µm (Abstract, Fig. 1A, [0069], [0077], and [0087]). Therefore, the Examiner deems that Sakuma et al. teaches a main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase, and a majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase in order to isolate the individual crystal grain main phase and to enhance the coercivity ([0069], [0073], [0077], [0086], and [0087]).
With regards to Claim 2, Mei et al. teaches 50 atomic percent or more of the element R is Sm (Col. 3: Line 59 bridging over to Col. 4: Line 28; Col. 5: Lines 37-47).
With regards to Claims 3 and 8, Mei et al. teaches 50 atomic percent or less of the element Y is replaced with at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr and Hf (Col. 3: Lines 64-66, Col. 4: Lines 14-16, and Tables 3 and 4).
With regards to Claims 4 and 9, Mei et al. teaches 50 atomic percent or more of the element T is Ti or Nb (Col. 4: Lines 4-6 and 21-24, and Tables 3 and 4).
With regards to Claims 5 and 10, Mei et al. teaches 20 atomic percent or less of the element M is replaced with at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Si, Cr, Mn, Ni, and Ga (Col. 3: Line 59 bridging over to Col. 4: Line 27).
With regards to Claim 6, Mei et al. teaches a magnetic material substantially overlapping the claimed composition of (R1-xYx)aMbTcDdAe where R is at least one element selected from the group consisting of rare-earth elements, M is Fe or Fe and Co, T is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, and W, D is at least on element selected from the group of Cu and Sn, A is at least one element selected from the group consisting of N, C, B, H, and P, a is a number satisfying 4≤a≤20 atomic percent, b is a number satisfying b=100-a-c-d-e atomic percent, c is a number satisfying 0<c<7 atomic percent, d is a number satisfying 0.01≤d≤7 atomic percent, and e is a number satisfying 0<e≤18 atomic percent. Mei et al. teaches the magnetic material comprising a main phase having a ThMn12 crystal phase, and a sub phase having at least one phase selected from the group consisting of a first phase containing 40 atomic percent or more of Cu and a second phase containing 25 atomic percent or more of Sn (Abstract, Col. 3: Line 55 to Col. 5: Line 12, Col. 10: Line 50 bridging over to Col. 11: Line 6, and Tables 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Mei broadly teaches element R is at least one rare earth element including Y, wherein it is desirable for Sm to constitute at least 50% of the element R (Abstract and Col. 5: Lines 37-51). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a 1:1 ratio (i.e. x=0.5) of Sm:Y, for example, to achieve a magnetic material with high crystalline magnetic anisotropy (Col. 5: Lines 45). Mei et al., however, does not explicitly teach the atomic ratio between R and Y (i.e. (R1-xYx)a, wherein x is 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8).
While Mei et al. teaches the main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase (Col. 2: Lines 48-52 and Example 1), the Examiner acknowledges that Mei et al. does not explicitly teach the sub phase includes a particle phase as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase.
Nishiuchi et al. teaches a magnetic material having a ThMn12 crystal main phase, wherein the magnetic material has a composition represented by R11-xR2x(Fe1-yCoy)w-zTiz, where R1 is Y, R2 is Sm, and x is within the range of 0 < x < 1.0 (Abstract, [0017], and [0033]). Example 6 in Nishiuchi et al. also discloses Y0.2Sm0.8(Fe0.8Co0.2)11.5Ti0.5 composition [0072], which is converted to Y1.538Sm6.154Fe70.769Co17.692Ti3.846 in atomic percent. This equates to having x=0.2, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s R and Y have an atomic ratio as claimed in order to obtain a magnetic material with increase magnetic anisotropy energy and stabilize the ThMn12 crystal phase [0027].
Sakuma et al. teaches a magnetic material comprising a sub phase (20) that completely surrounds a main phase (10), which isolates the main phases from each other. Sakuma et al. further teaches sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases, wherein the particle phases have a grain diameter of 1 nm to 3 µm (Abstract, Fig. 1A, [0069], [0077], and [0087]). Therefore, the Examiner deems that Sakuma et al. teaches a main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase, and a majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase in order to isolate the individual crystal grain main phase and to enhance the coercivity ([0069], [0073], [0077], [0086], and [0087]).
With regards to Claim 7, Mei et al. teaches 50 atomic percent or more of the element R is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ce, Pr, Nd, Tb, and Dy (Col. 3: Line 59 bridging over to Col. 4: Line 28; Col. 5: Lines 37-51)
With regards to Claim 11, please see Col. 10: Lines 50-63 and Table 2.
With regards to Claim 13, Mei et al. teaches the first phase or the second phase has a melting point lower than the ThMn12 crystal main phase. It is also desirable for the first or second phase to have a melting point lower by at least 50°C than the melting point of the ThMn12 crystal phase (Col. 5: Lines 3-12).
Although Mei et al. does not explicitly teach a melting point of the first phase or the second phase is 250°C or more and 1200°C or less, the claimed property is deemed to be intrinsic to the material in the prior art since Mei et al. teaches a first or second phase with substantially similar composition (Applicant’s attention is directed paragraphs [0030]-[0032] in Applicant’s published application; Col. 4: Line 66 bridging over to Col. 5: Line 12 and Col. 10: Line 50 bridging over to Col. 11: Line 17 in Mei et al.). It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC §102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC §103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
With regards to Claim 15, in light of Mei et al. teaching of a main phase having an average grain diameter of 10-500 nm and Sakuma et al. teaching its sub phase having a grain diameter of 1 nm to 3 µm, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an area ratio of the sub phase is 50% or more when focusing in specific area in the magnet (i.e. a partition focusing at the matrix/sub phase). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have an area ratio as claimed to effectively isolate the magnetic main phase and prevent displacement of a domain wall in the main phase. As a result, the magnetization and coercivity of the magnet are enhanced ([0086] in Sakuma et al.”). Please note this is the same purpose as Applicant (please see [0036] in Applicant’s published application).
With regards to Claim 16, Mei et al. teaches an average grain diameter of the main phase is between 10 nm and 500 nm (Col. 12: Lines 3-8).
With regards to Claim 17, Mei et al. teaches a magnetic material overlapping the claimed composition of (R1-xYx)aMbTcDd, where R is at least one element selected from the group consisting of rare-earth elements, M is Fe or Fe and Co, T is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, and W, D is at least on element selected from the group of Cu, Sn, In, and Ga, a is a number satisfying 4≤a≤20 atomic percent, b is a number satisfying b=100-a-c-d atomic percent, c is a number satisfying 0<c<7 atomic percent, and d is a number satisfying 0.01≤d≤7 atomic percent. Mei et al. teaches the magnetic material comprising a main phase having a ThMn12 crystal phase, and a sub phase containing the element D (Abstract, Col. 3: Line 55 to Col. 5: Line 12, Col. 10: Line 50 bridging over to Col. 11: Line 6, and Tables 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Mei et al. teaches the sub phase has a melting point lower than the ThMn12 crystal main phase. It is also desirable for the sub phase to have a melting point lower by at least 50°C than the melting point of the ThMn12 crystal phase (Col. 5: Lines 3-12).
Although Mei et al. does not explicitly teach a melting point of the sub phase is 250°C or more and 1200°C or less, the claimed property is deemed to be intrinsic to the material in the prior art since Mei et al. teaches a sub phase with substantially similar composition (Applicant’s attention is directed paragraphs [0030]-[0032] in Applicant’s published application; Col. 4: Line 66 bridging over to Col. 5: Line 12 and Col. 10: Line 50 bridging over to Col. 11: Line 17 in Mei et al.). It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC §102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC §103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
Mei broadly teaches element R is at least one rare earth element including Y, wherein it is desirable for Sm to constitute at least 50% of the element R (Abstract and Col. 5: Lines 37-51). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a 1:1 ratio (i.e. x=0.5) of Sm:Y, for example, to achieve a magnetic material with high crystalline magnetic anisotropy (Col. 5: Lines 45). Mei et al., however, does not explicitly teach the atomic ratio between R and Y (i.e. (R1-xYx)a, wherein x is 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8).
While Mei et al. teaches the main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase (Col. 2: Lines 48-52 and Example 1), the Examiner acknowledges that Mei et al. does not explicitly teach the sub phase includes a particle phase as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase.
Nishiuchi et al. teaches a magnetic material having a ThMn12 crystal main phase, wherein the magnetic material has a composition represented by R11-xR2x(Fe1-yCoy)w-zTiz, where R1 is Y, R2 is Sm, and x is within the range of 0 < x < 1.0 (Abstract, [0017], and [0033]). Example 6 in Nishiuchi et al. also discloses Y0.2Sm0.8(Fe0.8Co0.2)11.5Ti0.5 composition [0072], which is converted to Y1.538Sm6.154Fe70.769Co17.692Ti3.846 in atomic percent. This equates to having x=0.2, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s R and Y have an atomic ratio as claimed in order to obtain a magnetic material with increase magnetic anisotropy energy and stabilize the ThMn12 crystal phase [0027].
Sakuma et al. teaches a magnetic material comprising a sub phase (20) that completely surrounds a main phase (10), which isolates the main phases from each other. Sakuma et al. further teaches sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases, wherein the particle phases have a grain diameter of 1 nm to 3 µm (Abstract, Fig. 1A, [0069], [0077], and [0087]). Therefore, the Examiner deems that Sakuma et al. teaches a main phase is disposed as a plurality of dispersed sections within the sub phase, and a majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mei et al.’s sub phase includes a plurality of particle phases as claimed and the majority of the dispersed sections of the main phase are majoritively contiguously bounded by the sub phase in order to isolate the individual crystal grain main phase and to enhance the coercivity ([0069], [0073], [0077], [0086], and [0087]).
With regards to Claims 18 and 19, Mei et al. teaches a permanent magnet comprising a sintered body of the magnetic material (Abstract and Col. 7: Lines 11-13).
With regards to Claims 20-23, please see Col. 1: Lines 16-19.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 6475302 (“Mei et al.”), in view of WO 2018123988 (“Nishiuchi et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20170178772 (“Sakuma et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160087517 (“Powell et al.”).
Mei et al. does not explicitly teach its magnetic material in a nominal structure of a vehicle containing a rotary electrical machine.
However, Powell et al. teaches vehicle comprising a rotary electrical machine, wherein the rotary electrical machine comprises a stator and rotor, and wherein the stator or rotor comprises a magnet and the rotor is connected to a turbine via a shaft and rotation is transmitted to the shaft (Fig. 10 and [0111]-[0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a vehicle comprise of Mei et al.’s magnet in order to vehicle have a high performance permanent magnet with excellent magnetic properties (Col. 1: Lines 12-21).
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 LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785