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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 3, 5 and 15-16 are cancelled. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 10-14 are examined herein.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’228 (US 2015/0147228) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 but does not further limit claim 1. Claim 13 depends from claim 11 but does not further limit claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagiwara (US2012/0075046).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Hagiwara teaches a Sm-Co magnet consisting of (Sm0.7Nd0.3)(Fe0.29Zr0.02Cu0.05Co0.64)8.2 (Abstract; [0007]; [0056]; Table 1, Example 1), which converts to 23.51 mass% R, 4.12 mass% Cu, 2.37 mass% Zr and 21.03 mass% Fe and the balance is Co and meets the recited composition in claim 11.
Hagiwara discloses that the magnet includes a plurality of main phase grain and grain boundaries ([0046]). Since the Cu to Zr atomic ratio in (Sm0.7Nd0.3)(Fe0.29Zr0.02Cu0.05Co0.64)8.2 magnet is 2.5 and Cu tend to enrich in grain boundary phase, the Cu to Zr atomic ratio in the grain boundary phase of (Sm0.7Nd0.3)(Fe0.29Zr0.02Cu0.05Co0.64)8.2 magnet is expected to be greater than 2.5.
Hagiwara discloses that the (Sm0.7Nd0.3)(Fe0.29Zr0.02Cu0.05Co0.64)8.2 magnet has residual magnetization of 1.24 T or more and the coercive force is 400 kA/m (Table 2, Example 1), which meets the recited property limitations in claim 11 and 13.
Fig. 1 in Hagiwara is a X-ray diffraction spectrum on Sm0.7Nd0.3)(Fe0.29Zr0.02Cu0.05Co0.64)8.2 magnet ([0065]). The peaks at 2ø=43º and 2ø=44º correspond to (303) plane and (006) plane, respectively and the I(006)/I(303) is 0.37, which meets the limitation recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Hagiwara does not explicitly disclose the recited cell size. However, cell size is determined by the magnet alloy composition and the process of making the magnet.
Hagiwara discloses that the magnet is made by sintering at 1190 ºC for 3 hours, a solution heat treatment at 1150 ºC for 5 hours, an aging heat treatment at 830 ºC for four hours followed by cooling to 600 ºC at a cooling rate of 1.2 ºC/min ([0055] to [0056]), which is very similar to the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification (Compare [0055] to [0056] of Hagiwara with [0017] of instant Specification). In view of the fact that Hagiwara teaches a magnet composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the magnet with the processing conditions that are very similar to the disclosed processing conditions in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet disclosed by Hagiwara to meet the recited cell size in claim 12. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’333 (US 2013/0241333), and further in view of Huang (Journal of Applied Physics, Vol 75, Page 6280-6282, 1994).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 11 and 13-14, US’333 teaches a Sm-Co magnet consisting of (Sm0.85Nd0.15)(Fe0.28Zr0.025Cu0.05Cobal)7.8 (Abstract; [0015]; [0065]; Table 1, Example 1), which converts to 24.48 mass% R, 4.07 mass% Cu, 2.91 mass% Zr and 19.98 mass% Fe and the balance is Co and meets the recited composition in claims 1 and 11.
US’333 discloses that the magnet includes a plurality of main phase grain and grain boundaries ([0029]). US’333 discloses that grain boundary phase is a Cu-rich phase ([0029] to [0047]). Since the Cu to Zr atomic ratio in (Sm0.85Nd0.15)(Fe0.28Zr0.025Cu0.05Cobal)7.8 magnet is 2 and Cu tend to enrich in grain boundary phase, the Cu to Zr atomic ratio in the grain boundary phase of (Sm0.85Nd0.15)(Fe0.28Zr0.025Cu0.05Cobal)7.8 magnet is expected to be greater than 2.
US’333 discloses that the magnet has residual magnetization of 1.18 T or more and the coercive force is 380 kA/m ([0033]; Table 3, Example 1), which meets the recited property limitations in claims 1, 4, 11 and 13.
US’333 does not explicitly disclose the property limitations recited in claims 1 (line 11-17), 6 and 14, and the I(006)/I(303) as recited in claims 7 and 11. However, these structure and property limitations are determined by the magnet alloy composition and the process of making the magnet.
US’333 discloses that the magnet is made by sintering at 1100-1300 ºC, a solution heat treatment at 1130-1230 ºC, a first aging heat treatment at 730-850 ºC followed by cooling to room temperature at a cooling rate of 0.2-2 ºC/min, and a second aging heat treatment at 830-875 ºC followed by cooling to 450-600 º at a cooling rate of 1.2-1.3 ºC/min and then quenching is started ([0028]; [0050] to [0065]), which are very similar to the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification (Compare [0050] to [0068] of US’333 with [0016] of instant Specification). The difference between the method of US’333 and the instant application is that US’333 does not explicitly disclose that rapid cooling is performed after the solution heat treatment. However, performing rapid cooling after solution heat treatment is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced as Huang. Huang teaches a sintered Sm-Co magnet and a method of making a sintered Sm-Co magnet that is analogous to (Abstract; Page 6280, left Column, last paragraph). Huang discloses that after solution heat treatment, the magnet is quenched to room temperature (Page 6280, left Column, last paragraph). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform quenching after the solution heat treatment as taught by Huang in the process of US’333 in order to reduce production time.
In view of the fact that US’333 in view of Huang teaches a magnet composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the magnet with the processing conditions that are very similar to the disclosed processing in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet disclosed by US’333 in view of Huang to meet the structure and property limitations recited in instant claims. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, US’333 discloses that the cell size of the examples are 80-115 nm (Table 3), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, US’333 discloses that the magnet is used in a motor and a power generator ([0002]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 10/22/2025 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733