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 Objections
Claims 9 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
PNG
media_image1.png
22
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In claim 9, line 4, “ “ should read –29wt.%≤a+x≤31wt.% –.
In claims 12-17, line 1, “an average particle size” should read –the average particle size–.
In claims 12-17, line 2, “an average particle size” should read –the average particle size–.
In claims 18-20, line 2, “alloy R1 and the powder of alloy R2” should read –alloy R1 to the powder alloy of R2–.
In claims 18-20, line 2, “the range” should read –a range–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 the limitation “but the alloy R2 does not include La and Ce,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation means that 1) R2 neither includes La nor Ce, or 2) R2 cannot have both La and Ce, but may have one of La and Ce. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the limitation “but the alloy R2 does not include La and Ce” is interpreted as –but the alloy R2 neither includes La nor Ce–, as this appears to be what Applicant intended in view of the instant specification. Claims 2-20 are dependent on claim 1 and are thus also rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN109585109), hereinafter “Chen,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method of preparing an NdFeB magnet including La and/or Ce, the method including the steps of separately preparing sheets (i.e., flakes) of master alloy A (corresponding to the instant alloy R2) and master alloy B (corresponding to the instant alloy R1) each by a melting and rapid solidification process (i.e., strip casting process), wherein the master alloy A neither includes La nor Ce, and the master alloy B may include at least one of La and Ce, separately placing the sheets of the master alloy A and the sheets of master alloy B in a hydrogen crushing furnace wherein the sheets are charged with hydrogen and crushed to obtain coarse powders (i.e., subjected to a hydrogen embrittlement process), followed by further crushing (i.e. the coarse powders by jet milling to obtain a magnetic powder A with an average particle size of 0.5-2.0 µm and a magnetic powder B with an average particle size of 2.5 to 3.2 µm (corresponding to 0.16 ≤ R2/R1 ≤ 0.8, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range), mixing the magnetic powder A and the magnetic powder B, orienting and forming the mixed powders in a magnetic field to form a green magnet (i.e., subjecting the mixed powders to molding and magnetic field orientation), isostatically pressing without elevated temperature (i.e., cold isostatic pressing), sintering, and tempering at 400-800⁰C for 1-6 hours, which reads on an annealing process (Abstract, [0007]-[0015], [0022], [0038], [0045]-[0046]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claims 2-11, Chen teaches wherein the composition of master alloy A (corresponding to the instant alloy R2) is [(PrrNd1-r)]aTmbBcFe1-a-b-c, in weight percent, wherein 0≤r≤1, 28≤a≤33, 0≤b≤5, 0.85≤c≤1.5, and wherein the composition of master alloy B (corresponding to the instant alloy R1) is [(PrrNd1-r)xMM1-x)]aTmbBcFe1-a-b-c, in weight percent, wherein 0≤r≤1, 0≤x≤1, 28≤a≤33, 0≤b≤5, 0.85≤c≤1.5, wherein MM is La and/or Ce, and Tm is one or more of Ga, Co, Cu, Nb, Al, and Zr ([0009]-[0011]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges with the exception of RE being 33.1-35 wt.% in alloy R1, where Chen teaches a corresponding range of 28-33 wt.%, which is just outside of the instantly claimed range. However, note that in the case where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claims 12-17, Chen teaches wherein magnetic powder A (corresponding to the powder of alloy R2) has an average particle size of 0.5-2.0 µm and magnetic powder B (corresponding to the powder of alloy R1) has an average particle size of 2.5-3.2 µm ([0013]), which falls within the instantly claimed ranges. Chen is silent as to the method of measurement. However, patentable weight is given to the claimed property and not to the method of measurement.
Regarding claims 18-20, Chen teaches wherein magnetic powder A (corresponding to the powder of alloy R2) accounts for 30-70% by mass of the mixture, and magnetic powder B (corresponding to the powder of R1) accounts for 30-70% by mass of the mixture (Abstract, [0020]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed mixing ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached on (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734