DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 21-25, and 28-34 are pending, and claims 1, 11, 13-14, 28-31, and 34 are currently under review.
Claims 2-7, 9, 12, 15-20, and 26-27 are cancelled.
Claims 8, 10, 21-25, and 32-33 are withdrawn.
Claim 34 is newly added.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 21-25, and 28-33, and newly submitted claim(s) 34, remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13-14, 30-31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (US 2022/0148772).
Regarding claim 1, Fujikawa et al. discloses a R-T-B-based rare earth magnet having a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract, 0040-0046]. Fujikawa et al. further teaches that R can include Nd and Pr as well as heavy rare earths, which one of ordinary skill would understand to include Dy because Dy is a heavy rare earth element [abstract, 0040-0042]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Fujikawa et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Fujikawa et al. does not expressly teach the claimed expressions (1) and (2) relating to ratios of Fe, Co, B, and X as claimed. However, the examiner notes that these expressions merely further limit the claimed amounts of Fe, Co, B, and X, which still overlap with the ranges of Fujikawa et al. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Fujikawa et al. further teaches that the magnet includes R2T14B main phases, R-rich phases, two-grain grain boundaries between main grains, and R6T13M compounds therein [abstract, 0031].
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Fujikawa et al. (wt.%)
R
31 – 32
29 – 32.5
Cu
0.2 – 0.5
0 – 0.5
Al
0.4 – 0.8
0 – 0.5
Ga
0 – 0.3
0 – 0.5
Nb
0.1 – 0.25
0 – 1
Co
0.5 – 2
0 – 4
B
0.97 – 1.03
0.5 – 1.5
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 11, 13-14, 30-31, and 34, Fujikawa et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the above composition of Fujikawa et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13-14, 28-31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniyoshi et al. (US 2018/0240590).
Regarding claim 1, Kuniyoshi et al. discloses a R-T-B-based rare earth magnet having a composition as seen in table 2 below [abstract, 0030-0036]. Kuniyoshi et al. further teaches that R can include Nd and Pr as well as heavy rare earths RH such as Dy [0039, 0053, 0061]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Kuniyoshi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Kuniyoshi et al. does not expressly teach the claimed expressions (1) and (2) relating to ratios of Fe, Co, B, and X as claimed. However, the examiner notes that these expressions merely further limit the claimed amounts of Fe, Co, B, and X, which still overlap with the ranges of Kuniyoshi et al. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kuniyoshi et al. further teaches that the magnet includes R2T14B main phases, double grain boundaries existing between two grains (ie. two-grain grain boundaries), phases rich in R such as the R2T17 phases, and R6T13Ga compounds therein [0043-0044, 0051].
Table 2.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Kuniyoshi et al. (wt.%)
R
31 – 32.5
27.5 – 35
Cu
0.2 – 0.5
M (Cu, Al, Nb, Zr): 0 - 2
Al
0.4 – 0.8
M (Cu, Al, Nb, Zr): 0 - 2
Ga
0 – 0.3
0 – 0.8
Nb
0.1 – 0.25
M (Cu, Al, Nb, Zr): 0 - 2
Co
0.5 – 2
0 – 10
B
0.97 – 1.03
0.8 – 0.99
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 11, 13-14, 28-31, and 34, Kuniyoshi et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the above composition of Kuniyoshi et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MEP 2144.05(I). Regarding the amended B amounts of 1 to 1.03 percent, the examiner notes that the B range of Kuniyoshi et al. of up to 0.99 percent is substantially close such that similar properties are present. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Specifically, it is noted that a mere difference of only 0.01 percent is not materially significant and can be attributed to mere measurement error. Furthermore, as stated above, Kuniyoshi et al. controls B to achieve high Hcj of up to 2400 kA/m [tables 8, 12, 16, 20, 24], or approximately up to 30 kOe as determined by the examiner, which is comparable to the values achieved by the instant application [table4 instant spec.]. This supports the above determination of obviousness due to mere closeness of ranges because similar magnetic properties are still achieved. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
The previous 103 rejections over Feng et al. have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 regarding the rejections over Fujikawa et al. and Kuniyoshi et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art ranges are broader than the claimed ranges and do not teach critical results of good magnetic properties and mechanical properties. The examiner cannot concur.
Firstly, the examiner notes that the purported critical results as argued in the current remarks filed 11/17/2025 (ie. magnetic and mechanical properties) are different than the critical results discussed in the affidavit filed 6/24/2025 (ie. mere presence/absence of R6T13X phase).
The examiner notes that evidence of criticality must demonstrate both statistically and practically significant results encompassed by the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(b-d). However, the evidence of the record clearly shows that the claimed R range of 31 to 32 percent is not critical because R values outside of the claimed range still achieve desirable magnetic properties [table4 instant spec.]. The evidence of the record further does not appear to demonstrate any statistical or practical significance because “inventive” examples and “comparative” examples still achieve similar magnetic properties [table4 instant spec.].
Regarding the purported mechanical properties of flexural strength, the affidavit filed 6/24/2025 expressly states that this feature is achieved by merely meeting the claimed R6T13X phase, which is already expressly disclosed by the prior art.
In view of the above points, the examiner cannot consider the claimed R range of 31 to 32 percent to achieve critical or unexpected results over the prior art disclosures.
The examiner notes that reciting a particular combination of both composition (ie. 0% Ga) and magnetic properties (Hcj, etc.) would appear to overcome the previous rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734