DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 30, 2024 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of CN 2020107922797 filed August 8, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed August 30, 2024.
Claims Filing Date
August 30, 2024
Amended
1-4, 9-13, 15, 19
Cancelled
5-8, 14, 16-18
Under Examination
1-4, 9-13, 15, 19
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 3 “whereinthe”.
Claim 1 line 4 “Zrand”.
Claim 1 line 6 “whereX”.
Claims 2-4 and 9-13 line 1 “TheNdFeB”.
Claims 2-4, 9-13, 15, and 19 line 1 or 2 “toClaim”.
The following objections are withdrawn due to claim cancellation:
Claims 16 and 17 line 1 or 2 “toClaim”.
Claims 16 and 17 line 1 “whereinthe”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim cancellation:
Claim 16 lines 1-2 “an average particle size D50 of the NdFeB alloy core particles is in the range of 2 to 6 um”.
Claim 17 lines 1-2 “a thickness of the mixed metal coating is in the range of 3 to 100 nm”.
Response to Arguments
Xu in view of Fujimura
Applicant’s arguments, see 4. As per Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), filed August 30, 2024, with respect to Xu in view of Fujimura have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Xu in view of Fujimura has been withdrawn.
Amended claim 1 recite “a) at least one high-melting metal M selected from the group consisting of Mo and Zr”.
Xu in view of Fujimura discloses a high melting metal M that is Ti (90Nd-5Al-5Ti, Fujimura pp. 2 and 4, Table 2), W, Pt, Au, Cr, Ni, Cu, Co, Al, Ta, or Ag (Fujimura Abstract, p. 2, Tables 1 and 2). Xu in view of Fujimura does not disclose M being at least one of Mo and Zr.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Aragaki and over Xu in view of Aragaki.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 19 lines 1-2 “A sintered NdFeB magnet…, wherein the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering”. Claim 19 depends from claim 15, which recites in lines 1-2 “A sintered NdFeB magnet produced from the NdFeB alloy powder according to Claim 1.” The Claim 1 lines 2-3 alloy powder is “NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy cores particles with a mixed metal coating”. Claim 19 is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113) directed to the manufacturing method of the NdFeB alloy powder used to manufacture the sintered NdFeB magnet.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9-13 and 19 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.
Claims 9-13 and 19 lines 1-2 “the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering” renders the claims indefinite. Claims 9-13 and 19 depend from claim 1, which recites in line 3 “the mixed metal coating is formed by simultaneously vapor deposition”. How can the mixed metal coating be formed by both vapor deposition (claim 1) and magnetron sputtering (claims 9-13 and 19)? How is magnetron sputtering related to vapor deposition? Do claims 9-13 and 19 further limit the vapor deposition process of claim 1 to be magnetron sputtering? Do claims 9-13 and 19 require magnetron sputtering in addition to vapor deposition? For the purpose of examination claims 9-13 and 19 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of requiring magnetron sputtering either as the vapor deposition process or in addition to the vapor deposition process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aragaki (JP 2008-069415 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Aragaki discloses a NdFeB alloy powder ([0040]-[0042]) for forming high-coercivity NdFeB magnets ([0008], [0011], [0036]), the NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0040]-[0042]), wherein the mixed metal coating is formed by simultaneously vapor deposition (metal evaporation) ([0041-[0042]) of
a) at least one high-melting metal M selected from the group consisting of Mo and Zr; and
b) a metal alloy RX, where X is one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Al, and Ga and R is at least one selected from the group consisting of Pr, Nd, La, and Ce, a weight ratio of metal alloy RX to the high-melting metal M in the mixed metal coating is in the range of 5:1 to 50:1 (Dy:Tb:Pr:La:Mo:V:Ga composition ratio of 1:1:1:0.2:0.2:0.2:0.2) ([0041]-[0042]).
The weight % of each element in the evaporated coating was calculated by:
1) calculating the atomic ratio by dividing each composition ratio by the sum total of the composition ratios, and
2) multiplying each atomic ratio by each elements respective atomic weight, then dividing that by the sum total of all of the elements atomic ratio x atomic weight.
For R = Pr, Nd, La, and/or Ce as claimed the weight% is 31.6. For X = Cu, Al, and/or Ga as claimed the weight% is 2.6. For M = Mo and/or Zr as claimed the weight% is 3.6. Therefore a weight ratio of RX:M is (31.6+2.6)/3.6, which is 9.5. If R is calculated using all the rare earth elements in the evaporated metal, Dy, Tb, Pr, and La, then R = 91.9 and RX:M is (91.9+2.6)/3.6, which is 26.25. Both of these values are within the scope of claim 1.
Element
Composition Ratio
Atomic Ratio
Atomic Weight
Weight %
Dy
1
0.26
162.50
30.5
Tb
1
0.26
158.93
29.8
Pr
1
0.26
140.91
26.4
La
0.2
0.05
138.91
5.2
Mo
0.2
0.05
95.95
3.6
V
0.2
0.05
50.94
1.9
Ga
0.2
0.05
69.72
2.6
Claim 1 is directed to a product (NdFeB alloy powder). The process of forming the mixed metal coating by simultaneously vapor deposition of a) at least one high-melting metal M; and b) a metal alloy RX has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I). In the instant case, the metal evaporation of the alloy obtained by mixing Dy, Tb, Pr, La, Mo, V, and Ga in a composition ratio of 1:1:1:0.2:0.2:0.2:0.2 (Aragaki [0041]-[0042]) reads on a metal alloy RX (R is Pr and La, X is Ga) that simultaneously evaporates and deposits all of the elements in the alloy, including Mo (M), to form a mixed metal coating (metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface) (Aragaki [0042]). When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
The preamble recitation of the NdFeB alloy powder for forming sintered NdFeB magnets has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the claimed NdFeB alloy powder that does not further limit the structure. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation such that the metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface (i.e. NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating) ([0041]-[0042]).
The limitation of the mixed metal coating being formed by magnetron sputtering has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation in which the product of the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the NdFeB product claims. “[D]etermination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I). When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragaki (JP 2008-069415 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Aragaki discloses an average particle size D50 of the NdFeB alloy core particles is in the range of 2 to 6 um (5 to 20 um) ([0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation such that the metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface (i.e. NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating) ([0041]-[0042]).
The limitation of the mixed metal coating being formed by magnetron sputtering has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation in which the product of the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the NdFeB product claims. “[D]etermination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I).
Claims 2-4, 9-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragaki (JP 2008-069415 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 103456452 machine translation).
In the event it is determined Aragaki’s disclosed powder size does not read on the claimed average particle size D50, then the below claim 2 rejection of Aragaki in view of Xu is applied.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), wherein an average particle size D50 of the NdFeB alloy core particles is in the range of 2 to 6 um (3 to 6 um) ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the NdFeB powder of Aragaki to have an average particle size of 3 to 6 um to allow for introduction of the mixed metal coating elements in the grain boundary of the magnet, improving grain boundary function and optimizing corrosion resistance (Xu [[0010], 0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation to a predetermined thickness on the surface of the raw material ([0024]).
Aragaki is silent to the thickness of the mixed metal coating.
Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), wherein a thickness of the mixed metal coating is in the range of 3 to 100 nm (10 to 40 nm) ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the NdFeB powder of Aragaki to have a mixed metal coating thickness of 10 to 40 nm because it allows for introduction of the mixed metal coating elements in the grain boundary of the magnet, improving grain boundary function and optimizing corrosion resistance (Xu [[0010], 0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 10-12, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation such that the metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface (i.e. NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating) ([0041]-[0042]).
The limitation of the mixed metal coating being formed by magnetron sputtering has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation in which the product of the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the NdFeB product claims. “[D]etermination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I).
In the event it is determined that the magnetron sputtering process imparts additional structure to the NdFeB alloy powder, then the below rejection of Aragaki in view of Xu is applied.
Regarding claims 9-13, Aragaki is silent to magnetron sputtering.
Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), wherein the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering ([0015], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the mixed metal coating of Aragaki to be formed by magnetron sputtering because it simultaneously sputters the alloy elements onto the powder, while introducing Dy at the grain boundary and Ga to reduce the melting point of the grain boundary, appropriately lowering the temperature of the subsequent heat treatment process, so that the alloying elements moderately diffuse near the grain boundary (Xu [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Aragaki is silent to producing a sintered NdFeB magnet from the NdFeB alloy powder.
Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]) and producing a sintered NdFeB magnet from the NdFeB alloy powder ([0002], [0012], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the NdFeB alloy powder of Aragaki to produce a sintered NdFeB magnet to advantageously form a magnet with improved grain boundary function and optimized corrosion resistance (Xu [0018]).
Regarding claim 19, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation such that the metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface (i.e. NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating) ([0041]-[0042]).
The limitation of the mixed metal coating being formed by magnetron sputtering has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation in which the product of the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the NdFeB product claims. “[D]etermination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I).
In the event it is determined that the magnetron sputtering process imparts additional structure to the NdFeB alloy powder, then the below rejection of Aragaki in view of Xu is applied.
Aragaki is silent to magnetron sputtering.
Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), wherein the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering ([0015], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the mixed metal coating of Aragaki to be formed by magnetron sputtering because it simultaneously sputters the alloy elements onto the powder, while introducing Dy at the grain boundary and Ga to reduce the melting point of the grain boundary, appropriately lowering the temperature of the subsequent heat treatment process, so that the alloying elements moderately diffuse near the grain boundary (Xu [0018]).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragaki (JP 2008-069415 machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 103456452 machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation to a predetermined thickness on the surface of the raw material ([0024]).
Aragaki is silent to the thickness of the mixed metal coating.
Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), wherein a thickness of the mixed metal coating is in the range of 3 to 100 nm (10 to 40 nm) ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the NdFeB powder of Aragaki to have a mixed metal coating thickness of 10 to 40 nm because it allows for introduction of the mixed metal coating elements in the grain boundary of the magnet, improving grain boundary function and optimizing corrosion resistance (Xu [[0010], 0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Aragaki discloses metal evaporation such that the metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface (i.e. NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating) ([0041]-[0042]).
The limitation of the mixed metal coating being formed by magnetron sputtering has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation in which the product of the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the NdFeB product claims. “[D]etermination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I).
In the event it is determined that the magnetron sputtering process imparts additional structure to the NdFeB alloy powder, then the below rejection of Aragaki in view of Xu is applied.
Aragaki is silent to magnetron sputtering.
Xu discloses NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), wherein the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering ([0015], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the mixed metal coating of Aragaki to be formed by magnetron sputtering because it simultaneously sputters the alloy elements onto the powder, while introducing Dy at the grain boundary and Ga to reduce the melting point of the grain boundary, appropriately lowering the temperature of the subsequent heat treatment process, so that the alloying elements moderately diffuse near the grain boundary (Xu [0018]).
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 103456452 machine translation) in view of Aragaki (JP 2008-069415 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a NdFeB alloy powder for forming high-coercivity sintered NdFeB magnets ([0002], [0012]), the NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles ([0013]) with a mixed metal coating, wherein the mixed metal coating is formed by simultaneous vapor deposition ([0015], [0018]).
Xu is silent to a) at least one high-melting metal M selected from the group consisting of Mo and Zr; and b) a metal alloy RX, where X is one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Al, and Ga and R is at least one selected from the group consisting of Pr, Nd, La, and Ce, a weight ratio of metal alloy RX to the high-melting metal M in the mixed metal coating is in the range of 5:1 to 50:1.
Aragaki discloses a NdFeB alloy powder ([0040]-[0042]) including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0040]-[0042]) of a)at least one high-melting metal M selected from the group consisting of Mo and Zr; and b) a metal alloy RX, where X is one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Al, and Ga and R is at least one selected from the group consisting of Pr, Nd, La, and Ce, a weight ratio of metal alloy RX to the high-melting metal M in the mixed metal coating is in the range of 5:1 to 50:1 (Dy:Tb:Pr:La:Mo:V:Ga composition ratio of 1:1:1:0.2:0.2:0.2:0.2) ([0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the mixed metal coating of Xu to be the Dy:Tb:Pr:La:Mo:V:Ga alloy with a composition ratio of 1:1:1:0.2:0.2:0.2:0.2 as disclosed by Aragaki to produce a magnet with high magnetic properties and strong corrosion resistance and weather resistance (Aragaki [0005]), where the Dy diffuses not only on the powder surface but also in the crystal grain boundaries and the evaporation of the material improves productivity and selectively deposits the scarce and expensive Dy and Tb on the powder surface (Aragaki [0008]).
The weight % of each element in the evaporated coating was calculated by:
1) calculating the atomic ratio by dividing each composition ratio by the sum total of the composition ratios, and
2) multiplying each atomic ratio by each elements respective atomic weight, then dividing that by the sum total of all of the elements atomic ratio x atomic weight.
For R = Pr, Nd, La, and/or Ce as claimed the weight% is 31.6. For X = Cu, Al, and/or Ga as claimed the weight% is 2.6. For M = Mo and/or Zr as claimed the weight% is 3.6. Therefore a weight ratio of RX:M is (31.6+2.6)/3.6, which is 9.5. If R is calculated using all the rare earth elements in the evaporated metal, Dy, Tb, Pr, and La, then R = 91.9 and RX:M is (91.9+2.6)/3.6, which is 26.25. Both of these values are within the scope of claim 1.
Element
Composition Ratio
Atomic Ratio
Atomic Weight
Weight %
Dy
1
0.26
162.50
30.5
Tb
1
0.26
158.93
29.8
Pr
1
0.26
140.91
26.4
La
0.2
0.05
138.91
5.2
Mo
0.2
0.05
95.95
3.6
V
0.2
0.05
50.94
1.9
Ga
0.2
0.05
69.72
2.6
Claim 1 is directed to a product (NdFeB alloy powder). The process of forming the mixed metal coating by simultaneously vapor deposition of a) at least one high-melting metal M; and b) a metal alloy RX has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I). In the instant case, the metal evaporation (Xu [0015], [0018]) of the alloy obtained by mixing Dy, Tb, Pr, La, Mo, V, and Ga in a composition ratio of 1:1:1:0.2:0.2:0.2:0.2 (Aragaki [0041]-[0042]) reads on a metal alloy RX (R is Pr and La, X is Ga) that simultaneously evaporates and deposits all of the elements in the alloy, including Mo (M), to form a mixed metal coating (metal evaporation material forms on the powder surface) (Aragaki [0042]), rendering the claimed NdFeB alloy powder obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses an average particle size D50 of the NdFeB alloy core particles is in the range of 2 to 6 um (3 to 6 um [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Xu discloses a thickness of the mixed metal coating is in the range of 3 to 100 nm (10 to 40 nm [0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 9-13, Xu discloses the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering ([0015], [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses a sintered NdFeB magnet produced from the NdFeB alloy powder ([0002], [0012], [0017]).
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses the NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), an average particle size D50 of the NdFeB alloy core particles is in the range of 2 to 6 um (3 to 6 um [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses the NdFeB alloy powder including NdFeB alloy core particles with a mixed metal coating ([0013], [0015], [0018]), a thickness of the mixed metal coating is in the range of 3 to 100 nm (10 to 40 nm [0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Xu discloses the mixed metal coating is formed by magnetron sputtering ([0015], [0018]).
Related Art
Lu (CN 106783128 machine translation)
Lu teaches a high coercivity neodymium iron boron magnet ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by performing physical vapor deposition of a heavy rare earth target of Dy or Tb ([0019], [0026]) and one or more high melting elements W, Mo, Ti, Zr, and Nb ([0014], [0035], [0045], [0101]) on NdFeB flakes ([0019], [0044]) that are then crushed into powder, pressed, and sintered to obtain a NdFeB magnet ([0024]).
Sun (CN 108470615 machine translation)
Sun discloses preparation of a high energy product and high coercive force sintered NdFeB magnet ([0002], [0009]) by performing evaporation and deposition of Pr/Nd particle elements on NdFeB fine powder ([0014], [0023]) where the deposition particles are mixed with a high melting point element ([0016]) that is one or more of W, Mo, Ti, Zr, and Nb ([0018], [0019], [0035], [0037]).
Miyamoto (US 2013/0323111)
Miyamoto discloses a NdFeB powder sputtered with a NdCu alloy ([0022]-[0024]) with 15 wt % Cu ([0063]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735