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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn. Claims 3, 7-8 and 15 are cancelled. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 16-19 are examined herein.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’306 (JP2006-274306A).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, JP’306 teaches a method of making an RTB magnet comprising: melting raw materials to form an alloy containing Nd, Al, Cu, B, Co, Fe and one or more of Zr, Ti, Nb, V etc.; pulverizing the alloy into a powder by hydrogen decrepitation process, adding 0.01-0.3 wt% lubricant to the hydrogen pulverized powder and pulverizing the powder into a fine powder having a particle size of 1-10 µm; compacting the alloy fine powder under a magnetic field into a compact, heat treating the compact under Ar gas or He gas to remove the lubricant at a temperature ranging from a decomposition temperature of the lubricant to the decomposition temperature of the lubricant + 300 ºC under a constant pressure of 7.3 kPa or greater when He gas is used and at 60 kPa or greater when Ar gas is used for 0.1 to 5 hours; and sintering the compact under vacuum 1000-1200 ºC (Page 4-8). JP’306 discloses that dehydrogenation process is not an essential process after hydrogen pulverization (Page 5), which meets the limitation pulverizing the powder containing hydrogen into a fine powder limitation as recited in claim 1. JP’306 discloses that a lubricant removal step is performed in inert gas atmosphere followed by sintering under vacuum (Page 6-9), which meets the limitation switching the atmosphere to a vacuum atmosphere after the atmosphere heat treatment and heating the compact under vacuum at the sintering temperature as recited in claim 1. The pressure of the inert gas and the heat treatment time disclosed by JP’306 overlaps the recited pressure range in claim 1 and the heat treatment time in claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, claims 1 and 5 are obvious over JP’306.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, JP’306 discloses that lubricant such as zinc stearate may be added to the hydrogen pulverized powder before fine pulverization into a fine powder having a particle size of 1-10 µm (Page 5-6), which meets the lubricant limitation recited in claim 2. JP’306 discloses that heat treating the compact under Ar gas or He gas to remove the lubricant at a temperature ranging from the decomposition temperature of the lubricant to the decomposition temperature of the lubricant + 300 ºC (Page 4-7). zinc stearate is known to have a decomposition temperature of 200 ºC, thus, the heat treatment temperature for lubricant removal in JP’306 is 200-500 ºC when zinc stearate is used as lubricant. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since JP’306 discloses a heat treatment temperature overlapping the recited heat treatment temperature in claim 4, claim 4 is obvious over JP’306.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’306 (JP2006-274306A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo (US 2023/0023534).
Regarding claim 6, JP’306 discloses that hydrogen decrepitation was performed to make a first magnet powder and the first magnet powder was further pulverized into fine powder having an average particle size of 1-10 µm in a non-oxidizing gas atmosphere (Page 5-8). JP’306 discloses that the oxygen content contained in the non-oxidizing gas is preferably 3000 ppm or less (Page 5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform fine pulverization in an atmosphere having water content as low as possible in order to avoid oxidizing the magnet powder.
JP’306 is silent on the hydrogen pressure for hydrogen decrepitation. Luo teaches a method for pulverizing magnet powder and discloses that the hydrogen pressure is 50-600 kPa ([0048] to [0068]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform hydrogen decrepitation at hydrogen pressure of 50-600 kPa as taught by Luo in the process of JP’306 in order to effectively pulverize the alloy into powder as disclosed by Luo. The hydrogen pressure disclosed by Luo overlaps the recited pressure in claim 6. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, claim 6 is obvious over JP’306 in view of Luo. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’306 (JP2006-274306A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui (US 2011/0279205).
Regarding claim 16, JP’306 does not teach that the lubricant is lauric acid. However, using lauric acid as lubricant during pulverization is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Fukui. Fukui discloses that lauric acid is used as lubricant during pulverization of magnet alloy ([0035] to [0043]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that using lauric acid as lubricant during pulverization of magnet alloy in the process of JP’306 would be able to make a magnet alloy powder with success as disclosed by Fukui.
Regarding claim 17, JP’306 discloses that the magnet alloy is first subjected to hydrogen pulverization to obtain a first powder and then pulverize the first powder to a fine powder having an average particle size of 1-10 µm (Page 5 and Page 7). JP’306 is silent on the particles size after hydrogen pulverization before the fine pulverization step. However, the recited particle size after hydrogen pulverization before the fine pulverization step is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Fukui. Fukui discloses that the particles size after hydrogen pulverization and before the fine pulverization step is 0.05 to 3 mm ([0033] to [0036]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pulverize the magnet alloy by hydrogen pulverization to 0.05 to 3 mm as taught by Fukui in the process of JP’306 in order to make a magnet powder with success as disclosed by Fukui.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’306 (JP2006-274306A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morimoto (US 2009/0053094).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, JP’306 does not teach that the lubricant is decanoic acid. Morimoto teaches a method of making RTB magnet and discloses that using capric acid (i.e. decanoic acid) as lubricant improves coercivity [0048] to [0066]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use capric acid (i.e. decanoic acid) as lubricant as taught by Morimoto in the process of JP’306 in order to improve coercivity as disclosed by Morimoto.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 8,287,661).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Ishii teaches a method of making an RTB magnet comprising: melting raw materials to form an alloy containing Nd, Al, Cu, B, Co, Ti, Fe etc.; pulverizing the alloy into a powder by hydrogen decrepitation process to obtain a coarse powder; adding zinc stearate to the coarse powder, pulverizing the coarse powder into a fine powder having a particle size of equal or less than 6 µm, compacting the alloy fine powder under a magnetic field into a compact, heat treating the compact to remove the lubricant preferably under a inert gas such as Ar or He at a temperature of 300 ºC or less and at a pressure less than atmospheric pressure (i.e. less than 101 kPa) for 0.5 to 8 hours; and sintering the compact under vacuum 860-1100 ºC (Col 5, Ln 55 to Col 15, Ln 67). Ishii discloses that in the sintering process, the compact is seen to release a gas while having its temperature raised and the gas released is mostly the hydrogen gas that has been introduced during the hydrogen decrepitation process (Col 11, Ln 9-16), which indicates that there is still hydrogen gas in the fine powder even after the powder is compacted and the process disclosed by Ishii meets the limitation pulverizing the powder containing hydrogen into a fine powder limitation as recited in claim 1.
Ishii discloses that a lubricant removal step is preferably performed in inert gas atmosphere and the sintering is performed under vacuum (Col 11, Ln 1-8; Col 15, Ln 60-67), which meets the limitation switching the atmosphere to a vacuum atmosphere after the atmosphere heat treatment and heating the compact under vacuum at the sintering temperature as recited in claim 1.
Since zinc stearate used by Ishii is known to start to decompose at ~200 ºC and Ishii discloses a heating temperature of 300 ºC or less for lubricant removal, Ishii covers an embodiment that the heating temperature for lubricant removal ranges from the decomposition temperature of the lubricant to the sintering temperature as recited in claim 1.
Ishii discloses that the pressure of the inert gas such as Ar and He for lubricant removal is lower than the atmospheric pressure (i.e. less than 101 kPa) (Col 11, Ln 1-8), which overlaps the recited pressure ranges in claims 1 and claim 19. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, claims 1 and 19 are obvious over Ishii.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued: “Paragraph [0018] of Iwasaki JP '306 (page 5 of the translation) allegedly states that dehydrogenation process after hydrogen pulverization is not essential. However, from the overall description of the cited art, this statement does not teach the inclusion of hydrogen in the alloy powder. The description in paragraph [0018] of Iwasaki JP '306 does not mean that hydrogen is incorporated without dehydrogenation treatment, but rather means that dehydrogenation is not necessarily required if the amount of hydrogen has been sufficiently reduced. In fact, dehydrogenation was performed in all the Examples in Iwasaki JP '306. That is, Iwasaki JP '306 does not disclose the active incorporation of hydrogen, but merely teaches that when the hydrogen content is low, the dehydrogenation treatment may be omitted. Thus, contrary to the present application, Iwasaki JP '306 still teaches the elimination of hydrogen as much as possible. This is clear to a person skilled in the art based on the descriptions of Iwasaki JP '306 as a whole”.
In response, JP’306 clearly states that the dehydrogenation process is not an essential process. See a translation of Paragraph [0018] below:
PNG
media_image1.png
149
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, as evidenced by Yan (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials; 306(2006)176-180), 472-1540 ppm hydrogen exists in the magnet powder even after a dehydrogenation process (See Table 1 of Yan). Thus, the process disclosed by JP’306 meets the limitation pulverizing the powder containing hydrogen into a fine powder limitation as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights