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 19, 21-22 and 48 are amended. Claims 1-18 and 27-36 are cancelled. Claims 37-39 are withdrawn. Claims 19-26 and 40-48 are pending.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of Claims 21-26, 43-45 and 47-48 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection of Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections of Claims 19-26 and 40-47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (US 2015/0170810), and further in view of Wang (Intermetallics, 15 (2006) 985-988) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 19-26 and 40-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka (US 2007/0102069), and further in view of Wang (Intermetallics, 15 (2006) 985-988).
Regarding claims 19, 21-22, 25, 40-44 and 46-47, Hidaka teaches a Nd-Fe-B sintered magnet comprising 27-35 wt% R (R may contain both Nd and Pr), 0.5-2.0 wt% B, 0.01-1.0 wt% Cu, 0.02-2.0 wt% Al and the balance being Fe (Abstract; [0059] to [0073]), which overlap the recited amount of R, B, Cu, Al, and Fe in the instant claims. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selected the amount of each element based on the range disclosed by Hidaka to make a magnet that meets the recited composition in the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hidaka does not teach the recited amount of Pr. Wang teaches an RTB magnet and discloses that substituting Nd with Pr increases magnet coercivity (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute Nd with Pr in the magnet of Hidaka in order to make a magnet having high coercivity as disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses an example having composition of (Nd1-yPry)16Fe78B6 (y=0.67) by at% (Table 1), which converts to 11.38 wt% Nd, 22.57 wt% Pr, 0.97 wt% B and the balance being Fe, which meets the recited amount of Pr in claims 19, 21, 22, 41 and 44. Hidaka discloses that R can be both Nd and Pr and the amount of R is 27-35 wt% ([0059] to [0073]). Thus, the magnet disclosed by Hidaka in view of Wang may contain 4.43 wt% to 12.43 wt% Nd, which meets the limitation recited in claims 40 and 43.
Hidaka in view of Wang is silent on the grain boundary composition Q1 and Q2. However, the grain boundary composition is determined by the magnet alloy composition.
In view of the fact that Hidaka in view of Wang teaches a magnet that meet the recited composition in claims 19 and 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet of Hidaka in view of Wang to meet the recited Q1 and Q2 limitation recited in claims 46 and 47. “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 20 and 26, since using a Nd-Fe-B magnet in an electronic component in a motor is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, claims 20 and 26 are obvious over Hidaka in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 23, Hidaka discloses that the Dy+Tb amount is 0.1-4 wt% ([0061]), which overlaps the recited heavy rare earth amount in claim 23. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnet containing heavy rare earth based on the amount of heavy rare earth amount disclosed in Hidaka to make a magnet that meets the recited amount of heavy rare earth element in claim 23. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 24 and 45, Hidaka discloses that the magnet contains 0.01-1 wt% Cu ([0066]), which is close to the recited amount of Cu in claims 24 and 45. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 24 and 45 are obvious over Hidaka in view of Wang.
Claims 19-26 and 40-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori (US 2005/0067058), and further in view of Wang (Intermetallics, 15 (2006) 985-988).
Regarding claims 19, 21-22, 25, 40-44 and 46-47, Fujimori teaches a Nd-Fe-B sintered magnet comprising 27-33.5 wt% R (R may contain both Nd and Pr), 0.5-2.0 wt% B, 0.01-1.0 wt% Cu, 0.01-1.0 wt% Al and the balance being Fe (Abstract; [0031] to [0065]), which overlap the recited amount of R, B, Cu, Al, and Fe in the instant claims. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selected the amount of each element based on the range disclosed by Fujimori to make a magnet that meets the recited composition in the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Fujimori does not teach the recited amount of Pr. Wang teaches an RTB magnet and discloses that substituting Nd with Pr increases magnet coercivity (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute Nd with Pr in the magnet of Fujimori in order to make a magnet having high coercivity as disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses an example having composition of (Nd1-yPry)16Fe78B6 (y=0.67) by at% (Table 1), which converts to 11.38 wt% Nd, 22.57 wt% Pr, 0.97 wt% B and the balance being Fe, which meets the recited amount of Pr in claims 19, 21, 22, 41 and 44. Fujimori discloses that R can be both Nd and Pr and the amount of R is 27-33.5 wt% ([0059] to [0073]). Thus, the magnet disclosed by Fujimori in view of Wang may contain 4.43 wt% to 10.93 wt% Nd, which meets the limitation recited in claims 40 and 43.
Fujimori in view of Wang is silent on the grain boundary composition Q1 and Q2. However, the grain boundary composition is determined by the magnet alloy composition.
In view of the fact that Fujimori in view of Wang teaches a magnet that meet the recited composition in claims 19 and 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet of Fujimori in view of Wang to meet the recited Q1 and Q2 limitation recited in claims 46 and 47. “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 20 and 26, since using a Nd-Fe-B magnet in an electronic component in a motor is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, claims 20 and 26 are obvious over Fujimori in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 23, Fujimori discloses examples containing 1-5 wt% (Examples 1-3), which overlaps the recited heavy rare earth amount in claim 23. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnet containing heavy rare earth based on the amount of heavy rare earth amount disclosed in Fujimori to make a magnet that meets the recited amount of heavy rare earth element in claim 23. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 24 and 45, Fujimori discloses that the magnet contains 0-1 wt% Cu ([0062]), which is close to the recited amount of Cu in claims 24 and 45. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 24 and 45 are obvious over Fujimori in view of Wang.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’706 (US 5,009,706), and further in view of Wang (Intermetallics, 15 (2006) 985-988).
Regarding claim 48, US’706 teaches a Nd-Fe-B magnet material containing a Nd14.1Fe78.9B6Cu1 by at% (Table 4), which converts to 30.96 wt% Nd, 0.99 wt% B, 0.97 wt% Cu and the balance is about 67.08 wt% Fe.
US’706 does not teach the recited amount of Pr. Wang teaches an RTB magnet and discloses that substituting Nd with Pr increases magnet coercivity (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute Nd with Pr in the magnet of US’706 in order to make a magnet having high coercivity as disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses an example having composition of (Nd1-yPry)16Fe78B6 (y=0.67) by at% (Table 1), which converts to 11.38 wt% Nd, 22.57 wt% Pr, 0.97 wt% B and the balance being Fe, which meets the recited amount of Pr in claim 48. The magnet composition disclosed by US’706 in view of Wang meets the limitation “consisting of” recited in claim 48.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that the cited arts do not teach the recited amount of B.
In response, Hidaka and Fujimori both teach an amount of B is in the range of 0.5-2 wt%, which overlap the recited amount of B. 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, the recited amount of B is obvious over Hidaka and Fujimori.
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