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 .
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2016/0293303 A1 to Hirota et al (cited applicant in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hirota ‘303 discloses a rare earth sintered magnet comprising R-Fe-B which contains M1, wherein R is at least two of yttrium and rare earth elements and essentially contains Nd, M1 at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb, and Bi, the magnet containing up to 1.5 at% O, most preferably up to 0.8 at%, up to 0.5 at% N, especially up to 0.3 at%, and up to 0.5 at% C, especially up to 0.4 at% and each of O, N and C are desirably as low as possible; an average grain size up to 6 um and crystal orientation of at least 98%.
Hirota ‘303 example 7 which discloses Nd:11.6 at%, Pr: 3.4 at%, Co: 0.5 at%, B 5.4 at%, Al 0.5 at %, Cu: 0.5 at%, Zr: 0.07 at%, Si: 0.05 at%, Ga: 0.5 at%, O: 0.54 at%, N: 0.09 at%, C 0.06 at% and Fe: balance being 76.79 at%, which corresponds to a composition of Nd: 25.25 wt%, Pr: 7.23 wt%, Co: 0.44 wt%, B 0.88 wt%, Al: 0.20 wt%, Cu: 0.48 wt%, Zr: 0.10 wt%, Si: 0.02 wt%; Ga: 0.53 wt%, O: 0.13 wt%, N: 0.02 wt%, C: 0.01 wt and Fe: balance being 64.71 wt%, having a grain size of 3.8 μm and a degree of orientation of 98.2%, which lies within the instantly claimed relationship of 0.26xD + 97 ≤ Or ≤0.26xD + 99 in that Or lies between 97.988 and 99.988 (Hirota ‘303, abstract, para [0051], [0060-0062 and 0076], Tables 1 and 2, Example 7). The examiner notes that the 3.8um grain size is so close to the claimed up to 3.5um range that one of ordinary skill would have expected them to have the same properties. It is well settled that 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) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). MPEP 2144.05
Regarding the instantly claimed O content of up to 0.10% (or 0.08%) by weight, up to 0.05% (or 0.03%) by weight N and up to 0.07% (or 0.05%) by weight C, the teaching of Hirota ‘303 of up to 1.5 at% O, most preferably up to 0.8 at%, up to 0.5 at% N, especially up to 0.3 at%, and up to 0.5 at% C, especially up to 0.4 at% and each of O, N and C are desirably as low as possible overlaps the claimed ranges, thus prima facie obviousness and the disclosure of an example with O: 0.13 wt%, N: 0.02 wt%, C: 0.01 wt suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that providing magnet with up to 0.10% by weight of O, up to 0.05% by weight of N, and up to 0.07% by weight of C would have been obvious and possible to achieve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to lower the oxygen content of example 7 of Hirota ‘303 to as low as possible including to within the range of at most 0.1 wt% O, the motivation for doing so is that Hirota ‘303 discloses that the oxygen content should be as low as possible (Hirota ‘303, para [0051]). Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of oxygen of Hirota ‘303 including the instantly claimed because Hirota ‘303 discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the X value of Hirota ‘303 is 5.46 at%, which when rounded to 5.5 at% lies within the calculated boundary ranges of 5.5 and 7.0. Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (See MPEP 2144.05 I). See In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.) In the instant case, the X value of Hirota ‘303 is close enough to the instantly claimed range of X that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 6, Example 7 of Hirota ‘303 contains 0.7 at% Zr (Hirota ‘303, abstract, para [0060-0062 and 0076], Tables 1 and 2, Example 7), lying within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, Example 7 of Hirota ‘303 contains 14 at% R and 1.2 at% M1 (Hirota ‘303, abstract, para [0060-0062 and 0076], Tables 1 and 2, Example 7), lying within the instantly claimed ranges.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0293303 A1 to Hirota et al (cited applicant in IDS) in view of US 2016/0293307 A1 to Hirota et al (cited applicant in IDS).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hirota ‘303 discloses that the sintered magnet may contain Dy, Tb and Ho in an amount from 0 to 5.0 at% (Hirota ‘303, para [0029]), but does not disclose that Dy, Tb and Ho are introduced into the magnet after sintering by grain boundary diffusion.
Hirota ‘307 discloses that Dy, Tb and Ho may be introduced into a R-Fe-B magnet after sintering by grain boundary diffusion in order to control a thickness of a Dy, Tb, Ho- rich layer and thus optimize coercivity enhancement effect and remanence (Hirota ‘307, para [0067-0073]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce Dy, Tb and Ho into the R-Fe-B magnet of Hirota ‘303 after sintering by grain boundary diffusion as suggested by Hirota ‘307. The motivation for doing so would be to control a thickness of a Dy, Tb, Ho- rich layer and thus optimize coercivity enhancement effect and remanence (Hirota ‘307, para [0067-0073]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue if Hirota’s examples were adjusted to be smaller, the amounts of O and N would both increase, and the magnet defined in claim 1 would not be obtained. Applicants further argue that in rare earth sintered magnets, there is a trade off between the powdered particle size and the amount of impurities such that any modifications would not easily or predictably achieve a low impurity level within the range of claim 1.
The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that applicant’s arguments cannot take the place of evidence. Moreover, Applicants have not shown evidence of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
jj
Prosecution Insights