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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 4-5 are cancelled. Claims 7-8 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 6 are examined herein.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of Claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 112750587A) are maintained.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 112750587A).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Song teaches a magnet containing 20-25 wt% Sm, 12-25 wt% Fe, 2-4 wt% Zr, 3-8 wt% Cu and the balance is Co (Abstract; [0007]), which overlap the recited composition in claims 1 and 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the amount of Sm, Fe, Zr, Cu and Co based on the ranges disclosed by Song to make a magnet that meets the recited composition in claims 1 and 3. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Song does not disclose the property limitations recited in claims 1 and 6 and the coefficient of determination recited in claim 2. However, these limitations are determined by the magnet composition and the process of making the magnet.
Song discloses that the magnet is sintered at 1160-1190 ºC for 0.5-2 hours, solution treated at 1130-1160 ºC for 1-4 hours, and aged at 800-900 ºC for 5-40 hours and then cooled to 400 ºC at a cooling rate of 0.5-1 ºC/min ([0011] to [0016], which overlap the processing parameters disclosed in instant Specification. In view of the fact that Song teaches a magnet composition that meet the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the magnet under condition that overlap the processing parameters disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet of Song to meet to the property limitations recited in claims 1 and 6 and the coefficient of determination recited in claim 2. “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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicants argued that in contrast to amended claim 1, the value of Br of the magnet disclosed in Song is 10.46 kG ≤ Br ≤ 11.78 kG.
In response, Song discloses an example having Br of 10.46 kG (Table 1, Example 4), which is close to the recited Br in claim 1. 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). Thus, the recited Br is a prima facie case of obviousness over Song. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Second, the applicants argued that Song's method involves first rapidly cooling the magnet to room temperature after the solution treatment, and then heating the magnet again to 800-900 °C to perform the aging treatment (Song, paragraph [0012]). In contrast, the present invention carries out the aging treatment without rapid cooling, and therefore the manufacturing process of the magnet differs from that of Song (Applicant's specification, paragraph [0068] to [0070]). As a result, the physical properties of the magnet of the present invention differ from those of the magnet disclosed in Song.
In response, the instant Specification discloses that after solution heat treatment, the magnet is subjected to aging heat treatment at 880-950 ºC. The instant Specification does not disclose a cooling rate after the solution heat treatment. There is no evidence that rapid cooling is not performed after the solution heat treatment in the instant application. In view of the fact that Song teaches a magnet composition that meet the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the magnet under condition that overlap the processing parameters disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the magnet of Song to meet to the property limitations recited in claim 1.
Third, the applicants argued that Song's invention aims to increase the residual magnetization and density of Sm₂Co₁₇-type magnets, which runs counter to the purpose of the present invention. Therefore, even if one of at least ordinary skill in the art refers to Song, there is insufficient evidence of record to deliberately lower the residual magnetization as in the present invention, and arriving at the approach as claimed would not be a matter of routine design for a person skilled in the art.
In response, Song discloses examples having Br in the range of 10.46 kG to 11.78 kG. Song does not disclose that the Br cannot be lower than 10.46 kG. 10.46 kG is very close to the upper limit of Br recited in claim 1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a magnet having Br of 10.46 kG is not statistically different from a magnet having Br of 10.39 kG. Thus, claim 1 is a prima facie case of obviousness over Song. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
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 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