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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Pending: claims 6-25
New: claims 21-25
Amended: claims 6-7, 10-12, and 15
Withdrawn: claims 16-17
Under examination: claims 6-15 and 18-19
Rejected: claims 6-15 and 18-25
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Maehara states that “In such cases, the product may be added to cool water to separate CaO and metallic calcium as suspended calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) from the magnetic particles.” Applicant argues that “Maehara does not disclose or suggest that the product resulting from the nitridation step, that is, the nitride is introduced into an alkali solution to obtain a magnetic powder as specified in amended claims 6 and 11.”
The argument is not found persuasive because the claim only states that the nitride be introduced into an (i.e., any) alkali solution to obtain a magnetic powder, and does not preclude water from being present, nor does it require that the nitride be exclusively introduced to an alkali solution. Maehara still meets the limitation, because Maehara states when the cool water is added, it forms suspended calcium hydroxide. The Examiner takes Official Notice that calcium hydroxide is sparingly soluble in water, but is nonetheless soluble enough to form an alkali solution with the cool water (any excess insoluble calcium hydroxide would be present as a suspension), which is evident from the fact that Maehara teaches that Ca(OH)2 is formed from the reaction of CaO with water (reaction: CaO (s) + H2O (l) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Ca(OH)2 (aq)). Thus, the nitride is still “introduced” to the alkali solution, albeit indirectly, which is not precluded by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maehara et al. (US 20180334386 A1).
Regarding claim 6, with regard to the claimed “A method for producing an anisotropic magnetic powder,” Maehara teaches a method of producing a titanium-containing rare earth-iron-nitrogen anisotropic magnetic powder having good magnetic properties, and secondary particles for a titanium-containing anisotropic magnetic powder (Abstract).
With regard to the claimed “comprising: pretreating an oxide containing Sm and Fe by heat-treating the oxide in a reducing gas atmosphere to obtain a partial oxide;” Maehara teaches obtaining an oxide containing R, iron, and titanium by calcining the second precipitate (oxidation step) [0021], wherein R can include Sm [0006], obtaining a partial oxide by heat treating the oxide in a reducing gas atmosphere (pre-treatment step) [0022].
With regard to the claimed “heat-treating the partial oxide in the presence of a reducing agent to obtain alloy particles;” Maehara teaches obtaining alloy particles by reducing the partial oxide (reduction step) [0023], wherein this is performed with metallic calcium reductant such as molten calcium or calcium vapor [0042]-[0045] as the reducing agent.
With regard to the claimed “nitriding the alloy particles to obtain a nitride”, Maehara teaches a nitridation step includes obtaining anisotropic magnetic particles by nitriding the alloy particles obtained in the reduction step [0046].
With regard to the claimed “and treating the nitride with an alkali to obtain a magnetic powder”, Maehara teaches:
“[0048] In some cases, the product resulting from the nitridation step contains, in addition to the magnetic particles, contaminants such as CaO by-product and unreacted metallic calcium, and thus forms a composite with these contaminants in sintered bulk form. In such cases, the product may be added to cool water to separate CaO and metallic calcium as suspended calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) from the magnetic particles. The residual calcium hydroxide may then be sufficiently removed by washing the magnetic particles with acetic acid or the like. When the product is added to water, the oxidation of metallic calcium by water and the hydration of CaO by-product induce disintegration, i.e. pulverization, of the composite reaction product in sintered bulk form. Next, a phosphoric acid solution as a surface treatment agent is added in an amount in the range equivalent to 0.10 to 10 wt % of PO4 relative to the solids of the magnetic particles obtained in the nitridation step. The particles may be appropriately separated from the solution and dried to obtain an anisotropic magnetic powder.”
In the interest of clarity of the record, the interpretation is being taken such that the claim only states that the nitride be introduced into an (i.e., any) alkali solution to obtain a magnetic powder, and does not preclude water from being present, nor does it require that the nitride be exclusively introduced to an alkali solution. Maehara states that when the cool water is added, it forms suspended calcium hydroxide. The Examiner takes Official Notice that calcium hydroxide is sparingly soluble in water, but is nonetheless soluble enough to form an alkali solution with the cool water (any excess insoluble calcium hydroxide would be present as a suspension), which is evident from the fact that Maehara teaches that Ca(OH)2 is formed from the reaction of CaO with water (reaction: CaO (s) + H2O (l) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Ca(OH)2 (aq)). Thus, the nitride is still “introduced” to the alkali solution, albeit indirectly, which is not precluded by the claim. Thus, because the alkali is already present after the nitriding step, the fact that there is still alkali (CaO, Ca, and/or Ca(OH)2, and the material is processed in a way with the alkali, such as washing and disintegrating/pulverizing, until all of the alkali is removed (by means of forming an alkali solution with CaO which forms Ca(OH)2, this meets the BRI of the claimed “introducing the nitride into an alkali solution to obtain a magnetic powder”.
Regarding claims 7 and 9-10, Maehara teaches the method of claim 6 above, and as discussed above (in paragraph [0048], Maehara teaches using acetic and phosphoric acid [0048], meeting claim 7, teaches drying after treating with an acid, meeting claim 9, and as discussed in [0048], teaches that when the product is added to water, CaO forms Ca(OH)2, meeting claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, with regard to the claimed “A method for producing an anisotropic magnetic powder,” Maehara teaches a method of producing a titanium-containing rare earth-iron-nitrogen anisotropic magnetic powder having good magnetic properties, and secondary particles for a titanium-containing anisotropic magnetic powder (Abstract).
With regard to the claimed “comprising: pretreating an oxide containing Sm and Fe by heat-treating the oxide in a reducing gas atmosphere to obtain a partial oxide;” Maehara teaches obtaining an oxide containing R, iron, and titanium by calcining the second precipitate (oxidation step) [0021], wherein R can include Sm [0006], obtaining a partial oxide by heat treating the oxide in a reducing gas atmosphere (pre-treatment step) [0022].
With regard to the claimed “heat-treating the partial oxide in the presence of a reducing agent to obtain alloy particles;” Maehara teaches obtaining alloy particles by reducing the partial oxide (reduction step) [0023], wherein this is performed with metallic calcium reductant such as molten calcium or calcium vapor [0042]-[0045] as the reducing agent.
With regard to the claimed “nitriding the alloy particles to obtain a composite containing magnetic particles and contaminants including at least one of Ca3N2, CaO, and metallic calcium in a sintered bulk form; and treating the composite with an alkali to obtain a magnetic powder” Maehara teaches a nitridation step includes obtaining anisotropic magnetic particles by nitriding the alloy particles obtained in the reduction step [0046]. Maehara further teaches:
“[0048] In some cases, the product resulting from the nitridation step contains, in addition to the magnetic particles, contaminants such as CaO by-product and unreacted metallic calcium, and thus forms a composite with these contaminants in sintered bulk form. In such cases, the product may be added to cool water to separate CaO and metallic calcium as suspended calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) from the magnetic particles. The residual calcium hydroxide may then be sufficiently removed by washing the magnetic particles with acetic acid or the like. When the product is added to water, the oxidation of metallic calcium by water and the hydration of CaO by-product induce disintegration, i.e. pulverization, of the composite reaction product in sintered bulk form. Next, a phosphoric acid solution as a surface treatment agent is added in an amount in the range equivalent to 0.10 to 10 wt % of PO4 relative to the solids of the magnetic particles obtained in the nitridation step. The particles may be appropriately separated from the solution and dried to obtain an anisotropic magnetic powder.”
In the interest of clarity of the record, the interpretation is being taken such that the claim only states that the nitride be introduced into an (i.e., any) alkali solution to obtain a magnetic powder, and does not preclude water from being present, nor does it require that the nitride be exclusively introduced to an alkali solution. Maehara states that when the cool water is added, it forms suspended calcium hydroxide. The Examiner takes Official Notice that calcium hydroxide is sparingly soluble in water, but is nonetheless soluble enough to form an alkali solution with the cool water (any excess insoluble calcium hydroxide would be present as a suspension), which is evident from the fact that Maehara teaches that Ca(OH)2 is formed from the reaction of CaO with water (reaction: CaO (s) + H2O (l) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Ca(OH)2 (aq)). Thus, the nitride is still “introduced” to the alkali solution, albeit indirectly, which is not precluded by the claim. Thus, because the alkali is already present after the nitriding step, the fact that there is still alkali (CaO, Ca, and/or Ca(OH)2, and the material is processed in a way with the alkali, such as washing and disintegrating/pulverizing, until all of the alkali is removed (by means of forming an alkali solution with CaO which forms Ca(OH)2, this meets the BRI of the claimed “introducing the composite into an alkali solution to obtain a magnetic powder”.
Regarding claims 12 and 14-15, Maehara teaches the method of claim 11 above, and as discussed above (in paragraph [0048], Maehara teaches using acetic and phosphoric acid [0048], meeting claim 12, teaches drying after treating with an acid, meeting claim 14, and as discussed in [0048], teaches that when the product is added to water, CaO forms Ca(OH)2, meeting claim 15.
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Maehara teaches the method of claims 6 and 11 above, respectively, and as discussed above, teaches that the reducing agent is metallic calcium [0042]-[0045].
Claims 20, 22-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maehara et al. (US 20180334386 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 11 above.
Regarding claims 20, 22-23, and 25, as discussed in the rejections of claims 6 and 11 above, Maehara teaches that the reducing agent is metallic calcium [0042]-[0045]. Regarding the pH of the alkali solution, although the pH is not explicitly taught, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that assuming cool water means about room temperature, the pH for a saturated calcium hydroxide solution is 12.4, which meets the limitation. The assumption for saturated calcium hydroxide is based on 1) the fact that there is a “suspension” of calcium hydroxide, which would occur if no more calcium hydroxide would be dissolved, at which point it would not be in solution, but rather a solid suspended within the solution. This occurs because calcium hydroxide inherently has a low solubility in water.
In the alternative, the pH would be close such that it would overlap in ranges with the claimed range, or close, but not overlapping. 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.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (MPEP 2144.05).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehara et al. (US 20180334386 A1), as applied to claims 7 and 12 above, in view of Kawano et al. (US 20020029824 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Maehara teaches the magnetic powder of claim 7 above, but is silent regarding the acid being at least one of hydrogen chloride or nitric acid.
Kawano teaches a process for producing an Sm-Fe-N alloy powder (Abstract), and further teaches washing calcium compounds out of alloy powder using acetic acid or hydrochloric acid [0090].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maehara by simply substituting the acetic or phosphoric acid with hydrochloric acid as taught by Kawano, as doing so would predictably allow for washing away and reducing residual alkaline substances in the processed magnetic material (Maehara, [0048]; Kawano, [0090]).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Maehara teaches the magnetic powder of claim 12 above, but is silent regarding the acid being at least one of hydrogen chloride or nitric acid.
Kawano teaches a process for producing an Sm-Fe-N alloy powder (Abstract), and further teaches washing calcium compounds out of alloy powder using acetic acid or hydrochloric acid [0090].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maehara by simply substituting the acetic or phosphoric acid with hydrochloric acid as taught by Kawano, as doing so would predictably allow for washing away and reducing residual alkaline substances in the processed magnetic material (Maehara, [0048]; Kawano, [0090]).
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 Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 at 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735