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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2019-203966 filed November 11, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2021/095630, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2020/041339 filed November 5, 2020.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments and Claim Amendments filed April 28, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 28, 2026
Amended
1
Cancelled
2, 4
Pending
1, 3, 5
Response to Remarks and Declaration under 37 C.F.F. §1.132 filed April 28, 2026
Yamamoto
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 3 paras. 3-4, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to Yamamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections of Yamamoto have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 recites 0.1 to 0.29 at% O (p. 3 para. 3), but Yamamoto discloses 0.42 at% O (Remarks p. 3 para. 4).
Fujiwara
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 with respect to Fujiwara have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues amended claim 1 recites 0.1 to 0.29 at% O (p. 3 para. 3), but Fujiwara discloses 0.33 at% O (Remarks p. 3 para. 4).
Fujiwara discloses 0.1 to 1.6 at% oxygen (0.03 to 0.4 mass%) ([0028]), such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues applicant’s [0029] and examples/comparative examples show that reducing the O content and optimizing the relationship between B, C, and Zr and O in Formula (1) achieves both Br and Hcj (Remarks pp. 4-5) where constant Zr with varying O demonstrates significance of the claimed scope (Remarks p. 5 paras. 3-5) and applicant’s [0046] states that Fig. 1 is based on Tables 1 and 2, which expressly list the Br and Hcj values for the magnets and comparative examples (Remarks p. 6 paras. 1-2) and Experiments 1-7 provide sufficient data for comparison both within and outside the claimed scope to clarify the significant of relational formula (1), in particular with respect to Zr in Exs. 1-3 (Remarks pp. 6-9; Dec pp. 1-4).
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
The figure presented by applicant in the arguments and declaration is presented below with additional annotations.
The graph includes Additional Experiment Comparative Exp. 3 that falls within the B, C, and Zr and O relationship. According to the provided data (Remarks p. 8; Dec p. 3), this example has 0.6 at% Zr, which is outside the claimed 0.02 to 0.5% Zr content. The data includes only this one example with Zr outside the claimed range. Furthermore, the next highest inventive Zr content is 0.4 at% (Additional Experiment 2). There is also one examples with 0.2 at% Zr (Additional Experiment 1) with the remaining examples at 0.07 at% Zr. This data is insufficient to establish criticality of the claimed Zr content range.
Regarding the claimed relationship between B, C, and Zr and O, the below graph includes dotted regions between the experimental data and the comparative data. Data within these regions that are near the boundary lines of claimed Relationship 1 has not been presented. Therefore, this data is insufficient to establish criticality of the claimed Relationship 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
575
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment a new grounds of rejection is made over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yamamoto.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2002/0007875).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an R-Fe-B-type sintered magnet having a composition that reads on the claimed R, B, Zr, C, Cu, Fe, and Relationship 1 (Example 1) ([0059]).
Yamamoto Example 1 discloses 0.105 wt% oxygen (0.42 at%).
Yamamoto discloses 0.05 to 0.5% oxygen ([0043], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Example 1 of Yamamoto to vary the oxygen between 0.05 to 0.5% to prevent excessive sintering and poor squareness ratio (Yamamoto [0050]).
For modified Example 1 of Yamamoto, an oxygen content of 0.05 to 0.073 wt% has a Relationship 1 of 0.15 to 0.45 for 0.20 at% O (0.05 wt% O) to 0.14 to 0.44 for 0.29 at% (0.073 wt% O).
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).
Further, Yamamoto discloses an R-Fe-B-type sintered magnet having a composition that reads on the claimed R, Fe, Co, Zr, and O (Example 2) ([0064]).
Yamamoto Example 2 discloses 1.1 wt% B ([0064]).
Yamamoto discloses 0.9 to 1.5 wt% B ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Example 2 of Yamamoto to vary the B between 0.9 to 1.5 wt% to prevent an excessive decrease in coercivity and to prevent an excessive decline in residual flux density ([0046]).
Yamamoto Example 2 discloses 0.1 wt% Cu ([0064]).
Yamamoto discloses 0.02 to 1.0 wt% Cu ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Example 2 of Yamamoto to vary the Cu between 0.02 to 1.0 wt% to increase coercivity without an excessive decrease in residual flux density ([0048]).
For modified Example 2 of Yamamoto, a boron content of 0.94 to 0.99 wt% has a Relationship 1 of -0.04 to 0.25 (0.94 wt% B) to 0.20 to 0.50 (0.99 wt% B), both of which encompass the 0.23 at% O.
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).
Element
Claims 1 and 3
Yamamoto Ex. 1 [0059]
Yamamoto Ex. 2 [0064]
R: Nd essential
12.5 to 14.5 at%
(27.9 to 32.2 wt%)
R: 13.4 at%
Nd: 12.1 at% (27 wt%)
Pr: 0.9 at% (2 wt%)
Dy: 0.4 at% (1 wt%)
R: 13.6 at%
Nd: 13.4 at% (30 wt%)
Tb: 0.2 at% (0.5 wt%)
B
5.0 to 5.9 at%
(0.84 to 1 wt%)
5.9 at%
(1 wt%)
6.5 at%
(1.1 wt%)
Zr
0.02 to 0.5 at%
0.1 at%
(0.2 wt%)
0.2 at%
(0.3 wt%)
C
to 1.6 at%
(0.02 to 0.30 wt%)
0.2 at%
(0.031 wt%)
0.4 to 0.5 at%
(0.081 to 0.092 wt%)
O
0.1 to 0.8 at%
(0.02 to 0.20 wt%)
0.42 at%
(0.105 wt%)
0.23 at%
(0.058 wt%)
Cu
0.2 to 0.5 at%
(0.2 to 0.5 wt%)
0.2 at%
(0.2 wt%)
0.1 at%
(0.1 wt%)
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
Relationship 1
0.86*([B]+[C]-2[X])-4.9 < [O] <
0.86*([B]+[C]-2[X])-4.6
0.14 to 0.44 at%
0.73 to 1.0 at%
Co
0.1 to 3.5 at%
(0 to 3.2 wt%)
3.3 at%
(3 wt%)
1.1 at%
(1 wt%)
Al
-
1.2 at%
(0.5 wt%)
1.7 at%
(0.7 wt%)
N
-
0.04 at%
(0.009 wt%)
0.01 at%
(0.003 wt%)
Regarding claim 3, Example 1 of Yamamoto includes 3.3 at% (3 wt%) Co ([0059]).
Example 2 of Yamamoto includes 1.1 at% (1 wt%) Co ([0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Examples 1 and 2 of Yamamoto([0059], [0064]) are silent to more than 0 at% and up to 0.1 at% Ga.
Yamamoto discloses up to 0.2 wt% (0.2 at%) Ga ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Example 1 and Example 2 of Yamamoto to include up to 0.2 at% (0.2 wt%) Ga to not compromise the effects of the invention ([0053]). 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).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JP 2014-027268 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, Fujiwara discloses an R-Fe-B-type sintered magnet ([0001]) with a composition ([0008]-[0009], [0013]-[0032]) that overlaps with that claimed. 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).
Element
Claims 1, 3, 5
Fujiwara Disclosure
Fujiwara Citation
R: Nd essential
12.5 to 14.5 at%
(27.9 to 32.2 wt%)
13.3 to 14.8 at%
(29.5 to 33.0 mass%)
[0018]
B
5.0 to 5.9 at%
(0.84 to 1 wt%)
4.2 to 2.7 at%
(0.7 to 0.95 mass%)
[0022]
Zr
0.02 to 0.5 at%
Zr: 0.02 to 0.2 at%
(Zr: 0.03 to 0.25 mass%)
[0029]
C
to 1.6 at%
(0.02 to 0.30 wt%)
0.3 to 1.6 at%
(0.05 to 0.3 mass%)
[0027]
O
0.1 to 0.8 at%
(0.02 to 0.20 wt%)
0.1 to 1.6 at%
(0.03 to 0.4 mass%)
[0028]
Cu
0.2 to 0.5 at%
(0.2 to 0.5 wt%)
0.01 to 1.5 at%
(0.01 to 1.5 mass%)
[0023]
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0008]
Relation. 1
0.86*([B]+[C]-2[X])-4.9
< [O] <
0.86*([B]+[C]-2[X])-4.6
0 to 1.4 at%
-
Co
0.1 to 3.5 at%
(0 to 3.2 wt%)
More than 0 to 3.3 at%
(more than 0 to 3.0 mass%)
[0025]
Al
More than 0 to 1.0 at%
(more than 0 to 0.4 wt%)
0.07 to 1.4 at%
(0.03 to 0.6 mass%)
[0023]
Ga
More than 0 to 0.1 at%
(more than 0 to 0.1 wt%)
0.09 to 0.9 at%
(0.1 to 1.0 mass%)
[0026]
N
-
0 to 0.7 at%
(0.15 or less mass%)
[0030]
Related Art
Fujikawa (JP 2019-208012 machine translation)
Fujikawa, published 2019-12-05, discloses an R-T-B based permanent magnet ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0011]-[0015], [0026]-[0036], [0044]-[0047]) with improved Br and Hcj ([0017]).
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.
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, Wednesday-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
Prosecution Insights