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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/20/2023 has been entered.
Status of Claims
No amendment was made. Claims 1-18 have been cancelled. Claims 19-37 are pending.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of Claims 19, 22-23 and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Li (IEEE transaction on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403) are maintained.
The rejections of Claims 20-21, 24-25 and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transaction on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403), and further in view of US’687 (US 2013/0142687) are maintained.
The rejection of Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transation on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403) in view of US’687 (US 2013/0142687), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2008/0317620) is maintained.
The rejection of Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transation on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Furusawa (US 2014/0123809) and Tomizawa (US 2004/0168747) is maintained.
The rejections of Claims 28 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transation on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 2010/0040501, hereinafter “Kato et al.”) are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 19, 22-23 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Li (IEEE transaction on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403).
Regarding Claims 19, 22-23 and 29-30, Li teaches (Abstract; Page 1, Experimental Details) a method of making a sintered magnet from a waste sintered Nd-Fe-B magnet and powder of special alloy (SA) with 0-3.0 wt% of SA alloy. Li discloses that the waste sintered Nd-Fe-B is a sintered 35H magnet (Abstract; Page 1, Experimental Details), which meets the limitation sintering a compact comprising sintering NdFeB powder comprising a plurality of 2:14:1 phase grains as recited in claim 19. Li further discloses that the waste magnet is subjected to hydrogen cracking to make a Nd-Fe-B powder from the recycled sintered NdFeB magnet, the Nd-Fe-B powder is mixed with SA alloy powder by ball milling, the powder mixture is magnetically aligned, pressed at 30 MPA and sintered to make a magnet having (Dy,Nd)2Fe14B main phase by substituting some of Nd in Nd2Fe14B main phase with Dy (Page 1, Experimental Details; Page 3, left column, 1st paragraph), which meets the limitations recited in claims 19, 22-23 and 29-30.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 20-21, 24-25 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transaction on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403), and further in view of US’687 (US 2013/0142687).
Regarding claim 20-21 and 24-25, Li discloses that the recycled Nd-Fe-B is a sintered 35H magnet (Abstract; Page 1, Experimental Details) and that the recycled magnet is subjected to hydrogen cracking to make a Nd-Fe-B powder (Page 1, Experimental Details).
Li does not teach that the recycled Nd-Fe-B magnet is made by melting magnetic elements to make a molten alloy, forming alloy flakes having 2:14:1 main phase grains and pulverizing the alloy flakes to make a powder. However, making Nd-Fe-B magnet powder by melting magnetic elements to make a molten alloy, forming alloy flakes having 2:14:1 main phase grains and pulverizing the alloy flakes to make a powder is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by US’687. US’687 teaches making Nd-Fe-B magnet powder by melting magnetic elements to make a molten alloy under inert atmosphere, forming alloy flakes with 2-14-1 main phase and pulverizing the alloy flakes to make a powder ([0030] to [0049]; [0032]; [0067]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Nd-Fe-B magnet powder by melting magnetic elements to make a molten alloy in inert gas atmosphere, forming alloy flakes with 2-14-1 main phase and pulverizing the alloy flakes to make a powder as taught by US’687 in the process of Li would be able to make a magnet powder with success as disclosed by US’687. US’687 discloses that the sintered magnet is prepared by melting and casting a starting material, pulverizing the resulting rare earth magnet alloy into magnet alloy powder, molding the powder in the magnetic field, sintering and ageing the molded product ([0003]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 21. Induction melting or arc melting to make molten metal of Nd-Fe-B is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, claim 24 is obvious over Li in view of US’687.
Regarding claim 31, Li in view of US’687 discloses that the magnet contains Nd, Co, Cu and Fe ([0073] to [0077] of US’687), which meets the limitation recited in claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, Li discloses (Table 1, SA alloy) that the SA alloy contains 12.32 wt% Nd, 51.45 wt% Dy, 2.34 wt% Fe, 7.49 wt% Cu, and 26.4 wt% Co, which converts toe. 8.5at% Nd, 31.4 at% Dy, 4.2 at% Fe, 11.7 at% Cu, and 44.2 at% Co and meets the recited limitation in claim 32.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transation on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403) in view of US’687 (US 2013/0142687), as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2008/0317620).
Regarding claim 26, Li in view of US’687 does not teach the inert atmosphere comprises reducing gas. Suzuki discloses making R-T-B melt under inert atmosphere or reducing atmosphere ([0022]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the R-T-B may be made under the protection of inert/reducing atmosphere as taught by Suzuki in the process of Li in view of US’687 in order to protect the melt from oxidation.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transation on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Furusawa (US 2014/0123809) and Tomizawa (US 2004/0168747).
Regarding claim 27, Li does not teach fragmenting with spraying atomizing apparatus.
Furusawa discloses that scrap magnet may be melted to make magnet alloy by strip casting which can be used to make magnet powder ([0038]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnet powder by melting the scrap magnet as taught by Furusawa in the process of Li in order to make a magnet powder with scrap magnet as disclosed by Furusawa. Furusawa discloses making magnet alloy from the melt by strip casting method, not atomization method as recited in claim 27. Tomizawa discloses that R-T-B alloy can be made from alloy melt by both strip casting method and gas atomization method ([0059]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that making R-T-B alloy by gas atomization method as taught by Tomizawa in the process of Li in view of Furuzawa would be able to make R-T-B powder with success as disclosed by Tomizawa. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (IEEE transation on Magnetics, 2014, Vol 50, 2105403), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 2010/0040501, hereinafter “Kato et al.”).
Regarding claim 28, Li is silent on the size of waste magnet powder. Kato discloses that the mean particle size of R-T-B powder is between 3 and 5 µm and by using such fine powders and also by setting the amount of rare earth elements contained in the low R alloy at somewhat high, both a high residual magnetic flux density and a high coercive force can be obtained even in a relatively low sintering temperature range ([0074]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pulverize the R-T-B magnet powder into particles having average particle size between 3 and 5 µm as taught by Kato in the process of Li in order to make a magnet having high residual magnetic flux density and a high coercive force as disclosed by Kato. The particle size disclosed by Kato overlaps the recited range in claim 28 and therefore the recited particle size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Li in view of Kato. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 33, Li discloses (Table 1, SA alloy) that the SA alloy contains 12.32 wt% Nd, 51.45 wt% Dy, 2.34 wt% Fe, 7.49 wt% Cu, and 26.4 wt% Co, which converts toe. 8.5at% Nd, 31.4 at% Dy, 4.2 at% Fe, 11.7 at% Cu, and 44.2 at% Co. The Nd, Dy, Fe and Co contents in the alloy disclosed by Li are within the recited ranges in Claim 33. The Cu content in the alloy disclosed by Li is greater than the recited Cu range in Claim 33.
Kato teaches a method for making sintered R-T-B magnet ([0011] to [0019]). Kato discloses that the method comprises mixing the R-T-B powder with an high R alloy powder and the high R alloy powder comprises 26-70 wt% R, 0.3-30 wt% Co, 0.03-5.0 wt% Cu, 0.03-0.3 wt% Al and the balance being Fe ([0011] to [0019]; [0071]). Kato discloses that the sintered magnet made from the powder mixture has high flux density and high coercive force ([0011] to [0019]. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lower the Cu content in the SA alloy of Li within the range of 0.03-5.0 wt% Cu as taught by Kato in the process of Li in order to make a magnet having high flux density and high coercive force as disclosed by Kato. The amount of Cu disclosed by Kato overlaps the recited range in claim 33 and therefore is a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Li in view of Kato does not teach an additive alloy of Nd5.5-12.5Dy35-45Co32-41Cu3-6.5Fe1.5-5 (at.%) as recited in claim 34 and an additive alloy of Nd11.92Dy42.32Co38.39Cu5.34Fe2.03 (at.%) as recited in claim 35.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/20/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued: “Li does not enable any sintering step”. Li sets forth no details with respect to how the 35H magnet is produced. Li does not enable those skilled in the art to make and use the claimed subject matter and the claimed subject matter cannot be produced based on the disclosure of Li without undue experimentation.
In response, Li discloses that the waste Nd-Fe-B magnet is a sintered magnet (See the first line of Abstract). Sintered magnet is made by sintering. Therefore, Li disclosed a sintering step prior to the recycling process and claim 1 is anticipated by Li.
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