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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/18/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 20 are amended. Claims 3 and 6-7 are cancelled. Claims 10-17 are withdrawn. Claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 18-25 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please delete “nm” from line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “accurate” and “reduced” in claims 23 and 25 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “accurate” and “reduced” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required. For this examination, these limitations were not given patentable weight.
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, 4-5, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 7(1995)8655-8658), and further in view of Saito (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 369(2014)184-188).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 18-25, Hu teaches a magnet comprising Sm-Fe-N hard magnet particles with a particle size of 1 µm and soft magnetic Fe nanoparticles with particle size of 20-50 nm (Abstract; Page 8655, 1st paragraph), which meets the particle size limitation recited in claims 1 and 20-25, and the soft magnetic phase limitation recited in claims 18-19.
Hu discloses that resin is used to make a bonded magnet (Page 8655, 1st paragraph). Hu does not disclose that the Fe nanoparticles bind together the Sm-Fe-N particles. Saito teaches a method of making a Sm-Fe-N magnet and discloses that spark plasma sintering can be used to make a Sm-Fe-N magnet without using a nonmagnetic binder and the magnet produced has good magnetic properties (Page 8655, Introduction). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use spark plasma sintering as taught by Saito in the process of Hu in order to make a magnet having good magnetic properties as disclosed by Saito. Since a binder is not used in the manufacturing process, the magnet disclosed by Hu in view of Saito meets the limitation that the Fe nanoparticles bind together the Sm-Fe-N particles as recited in claim 1 and 20.
Hu in view of Saito does not explicitly disclose that the average inter-particle distance between hard magnetic particles. However, this limitation is determined by the particle size of soft magnetic material and the mixing ratio of the soft magnetic material. Hu discloses that the soft magnetic particle has a particle size of 20-50 and the mixing ratio of the soft magnetic particles is 10 % (Page 1, 1st paragraph; Fig. 1), which meets the particle size disclosed in instant Specification and the mixing ratio recited in claims 4-5. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet disclosed by Hu in view of Saito to meet the average inter-particle distance between hard magnetic particles recited in claims 1 and 20.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 7(1995)8655-8658) in view of Saito (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 369(2014)184-188), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2005/0257855).
Regarding claims 8-9, Hu in view of Saito is silent on the distribution angle of the magnetic particles. Kim teaches a method of making a magnet and discloses that improving the degree of the powder orientation improves the magnetic properties of rare earth magnet ([0006] to [0037]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the degree of the powder orientation in the process of Hu in view of Saito in order to improve the magnetic properties of the magnet as disclosed by Kim. Kim further discloses that by applying a pulsed magnetic field 1-10 times in the range of 30-70 kOe and aligning and compacting the magnet powder simultaneously under a high pulse magnetic field of 50-70 kOe, almost all the powders are oriented long the direction of the applied magnetic field and magnets having high magnetic properties can be manufactured (Abstract; [0019] to [0021]; [0032] to [0036]; [0055]). In view of the fact that Kim teaches a compacting process under a magnetic field greater than the magnetic field of instant applications (30 kOe), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the magnet disclosed by Hu in view of Saito and Kim to meet the recited distribution angle in claims 8-9. “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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 06/24/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejection ground.
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
Prosecution Insights