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
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 6-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are examined herein.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of Claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (2015/0348685) have been withdrawn in view of the applicants’ amendment.
The rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (2015/0348685), and further in view of JP’026 (JP 2007-266026A, IDS dated 05/25/2022) has been withdrawn in view of the applicants’ amendment.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “magnet consisting of R2T14B main phase crystal grains and a grain boundary” in line 1-2. Claim 1 also recites “R2T14B main phase crystal grains in contact with secondary phases” in line 11-12. It’s unclear whether “grain boundary phases” and “secondary Phases” are the same phases. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa (US2005/0268989).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Tomizawa teaches an R-T-B based permanent magnet consisting of R2T14B main phase crystal grains and a grain boundary (Abstract; [0029] to [0031]). Tomizawa discloses an example containing 31.0 mass % of Nd, 1.0 mass % of Co, 0.04 mass % of Ga, 0.2 mass % of Al, 0.1 mass % of Cu, 0.95 mass % of B and Fe as the balance ([0074], Fig. 7), which meets the recited B amount in claim 1, and the R amount in claim 5.
Tomizawa discloses that the R2T14B main phase accounts for 90% or more volume of the sintered magnet ([0053]), which overlaps the recited area proportion of the main phase as recited in claim 1. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited area proportion of the main phase is a prima facie case of obviousness over Tomizawa.
Tomizawa is silent on the coverage ratio of main phase by a grain boundary phase. However, this limitation is determined by the alloy composition of the sintered magnet and a method of making the magnet. Tomizawa discloses that the magnet is made by sintering at 1040 ºC for 2 hours, followed by aging at 500 ºC for 1 hour ([0075]; [0076]), which meets the sintering and aging processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification (See [0072] to [0084]). In view of the fact that Tomizawa teaches a magnet composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a process of making the magnet under conditions that meet the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the sintered magnet disclosed by Tomizawa to meet the coverage ratio recited in claim 1. “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 claim 2, Tomizawa discloses that the magnet contains 0.04-0.06 mass% C (i.e. 400-600 ppm), which overlaps the recited amount of carbon in claim 2. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited carbon amount in claim 2 is a prima facie case of obviousness over Tomizawa.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa (US2005/0268989), and further in view of JP’026 (JP 2007-266026A, IDS dated 05/25/2022).
Regarding claim 3, Tomizawa discloses that the magnet contains 0.38-0.41 mass% oxygen ([0078]), which is greater than the recited oxygen amount. JP’026 teaches a method of making a sintered RTB magnet and discloses impurities such as O, C and N should be as low as possible in order to make a magnet having good magnetic properties (Page 3 to 6). JP’026 further discloses that fine pulverization and compaction are performed in low oxygen atmosphere to reduce the oxygen amount to 1000 ppm or less (Abstract; Page 5, 3rd paragraph). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lower the oxygen amount to 1000 ppm or less by performing fine pulverization and compaction in low oxygen atmosphere as taught by JP’026 in the process of Tomizawa in order to make a magnet having good magnetic properties as disclosed by JP’026. JP’026 discloses examples containing 440-580 ppm of oxygen (Table 2), which meet the recited amount of oxygen in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Tomizawa discloses that the magnet has Br of 1.365 (Fig. 7, when B content is 0.95 wt. %), which is less than the recited Br in claim 4. JP’026 teaches a method of making a sintered RTB magnet and discloses impurities such as O, C and N should be as low as possible in order to make a magnet having good magnetic properties (Page 3 to 6). JP’026 further discloses by performing fine pulverization and compaction in low oxygen atmosphere and performing a lubricant removal step prior to the sintering step, a magnet containing low O, C and N amounts and having high magnetic properties can be manufactured (Abstract; Page 3 to Page 6). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lower the oxygen amount to 1000 ppm or less by performing fine pulverization and compaction in low oxygen atmosphere and to lower carbon content by performing a lubricant removal step as taught by JP’026 in the process of Tomizawa in order to make a magnet having good magnetic properties as disclosed by JP’026. JP’026 discloses that all the examples have a Br of 14.80 kG or greater (Table 2), which meets the recited Br in claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new rejection ground.
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
Prosecution Insights