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 .
Priority
A copy of the WIPO publication of PCT/US2021/035313 filed June 1, 2021, WO 2021/247619, is attached. Receipt of a copy of the priority document of US Provisional Application 62/704,883 filed June 1, 2020 is acknowledged.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, 20, 25026, 34, 37-38, 40, 44, and 46051, drawn to a method of producing a compacted magnetic body and sintering, in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I-A, directed to a first rare earth metal oxalate of neodymium oxalate and a second rare earth metal oxalate of praseodymium oxalate, in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that Species I-A and Species I-D are linked to form a single inventive concept because claims 25 and 26 recite the first metal oxalate compound is a hydrated metal oxalate compound, where metal oxalate compounds may be hydrated or may be non-hydrated (anhydrous) (PCT specification [0021], [0022]) (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
This is found persuasive. Claims 25 and 26 are under examination.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected precursor powder species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed November 6, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
November 6, 2025
Pending
1-17, 20, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46-51
Cancelled
18-19, 21-24, 27-33, 35, 36, 39, 41-43, 45, 52-63
Withdrawn
11-16
Under Examination
1-10, 17, 20, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46-51
Claim Objection
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informality:
Lines 1-2 “the precursor conversion temperature is at least about 980°C” appears to be supported by original claim 34, but is not consistent with applicant’s specification.
Applicant’s specification at [0027] recites a “precursor conversion temperature” of at least about 800°C and typically not greater than about 1000°C. The claim 34 precursor conversion temperature is within the range of about 800°C to about 1000°C, but it does not have an upper limit it only overlaps with about 20°C of the disclosed range.
Applicant’s specification only mentions the temperature “980°C” in [0051] with respect to a refining step after oxalate conversion. [0051] recites a range of “about 980°C to about 1035°C”. It is also is with respect to refining and not a “precursor conversion temperature”.
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 1-10, 17, 20, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44, and 46-51 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 line 6 “the furnace” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1 lines 6-11 “heating…to…form a metallic powder comprising particulates of the first metal, wherein the step of heating…is…to form a compacted magnetic body” renders the claim indefinite. How can the heating step form both metallic powder and a compacted magnetic body? A metallic powder has individual particulates. A compacted magnetic body is a cohesive body of particulates. The metallic powder and the compacted magnetic body, both formed during heating, have different structures.
Claim 5 line 2 “a second metal oxalate” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 5 depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 line 4 recites “a first metallic compound”. Claim 4 line 2 recites “a second metallic compound”. Neither claim 1 nor claim 4 recite a first metal oxalate. How can there be a second metal oxalate if there is not a first metal oxalate?
Claim 6 line 2 “a second rare earth oxalate” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 line 4 recites “a first metallic compound”. Claim 4 line 2 recites “a second metallic compound”. Claim 5 line 2 recites “a second metal oxalate”. Neither claim 1 nor claim 4 nor claim 5 recite a first rare earth oxalate. How can there be a second rare earth oxalate if there is not a first rare earth oxalate?
Claim 7 lines 1-2 “the first rare earth oxalate compound” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1. Neither claim 1 nor claim 4 nor claim 5 nor claim 6 recite a first rare earth oxalate compound.
Claim 8 lines 1-2 “the second metal oxalate compound is praseodymium oxalate” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 6.Claim 6 lines 1-2 recite “the second metal oxalate compound is a second rare earth oxalate compound”. How does the second metal oxalate compound being praseodymium oxalate relate to the second metal oxalate compound also being a second rare earth oxalate compound?
It is noted that that claim 7 lines 1-2 further limit “the first rare earth oxalate compound”, not the first metal oxalate compound.
Claim 44 line 1 “the mold” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 47 lines 1-2 “the step of sintering” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 17, 20, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38, 40, 46, and 48-51 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 17, 20, 25, 26, 37, 38, 40, 44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 3,955,961) in view of Kume (JP 2003-277814 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan discloses a method for producing a compacted (pelletized) (6:26-36) magnetic body (iron magnets) (1:26-36, 3:14-16, 7:45), comprising the steps of:
providing a precursor powder to a furnace, the precursor powder comprising particulates of at least a first metallic compound (metal carboxylate as oxalate) (3:34-46); and
heating the precursor powder within the furnace to a precursor conversion temperature that is sufficient to convert the first metallic compound (iron oxalate) to a first metal (iron) and form a metallic (iron) powder comprising particulates of the first metal (iron) (3:31-46, 6:44-55, 7:25-29),
wherein the step of heating the precursor powder is carried out under a compacting gas (hydrogen) pressure of at least about 2 bar (roughly 0.3 to 30 atmospheres, 0.3 to 30 bar) (6:37-7:1) to form a compacted (pelletized) (6:26-36) magnetic body (1:26-36, 3:14-16, 7:45). 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).
Jordan discloses the process uses metal carboxylate in the form of pellets (compacts) (6:26-36, 7:29-37). Each pellet starts as precursor powder and is heated to comprise metal particulates of the first metal. Each pellet reads on a compacted magnetic body. Further, the starting material (metal oxalate, Jordan 3:31-46, 6:44-55, 7:25-29) and process (heating under overlapping pressure, Jordan 6:37-7:1) of the prior art render obvious that claimed, such that the formation of a compacted body naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. In support, Jordan discloses breaking up the pellets (6:30-36), which, in order to break up, suggests they have formed a cohesive (compacted) body.
Jordan is silent to the at least a first metallic compound having a mean average particle size of not greater than about 100 µm.
Kume discloses a method for producing a magnet body ([0001]-[0002]) using at least a first metallic compound (precipitate particles of an insoluble salt of oxalate) having a mean average particle size of not greater than about 100 µm (0.05 to 20 µm) ([0011]-[0012], [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jordan for the iron oxalate to have a mean average particle size of 0.05 to 20 µm to optimize the powder for improved high magnetic performance (Kume [0005]-[0006], [0026]). 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).
Regarding claim 2, Jordan discloses the first metallic compound comprises a first metal oxalate compound (3:38-46).
Regarding claim 3, Jordan is silent to the first metal oxalate compound being a first rare earth oxalate compound.
Kume discloses a method for producing a magnet body ([0001]-[0002]) using a first metal oxalate compound that is a first rare earth oxalate compound (insoluble salt of rare earth element oxalate) ([0010], [0023]-[0025], [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jordan to include a first rare earth oxalate compound because the resulting rare earth alloys have high magnetic properties (Kume [0001]) due to optimized particle size (Kume [0006], [0026]) and have a homogeneous composition that suppresses the formation of unnecessary phases, resulting in high coercive force (Kume [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Jordan discloses the precursor powder comprises particulates of at least a second metallic compound (metal carboxylates of differing metals are readily obtained as coprecipitates for the production of alloys with each other) (1:4-8, 7:10-19).
Regarding claim 5, Jordan discloses the second metallic compound comprises a second metal oxalate compound (metal carboxylate as oxalate) (3:34-46).
Regarding claim 17, Jordan discloses the precursor powder comprises not greater than about 2.5 wt.% free carbon (reducing metal carboxylate in the form of oxalates in hydrogen in ceramic lined equipment, such that no free carbon is present in the process of Jordan) (3:31-46, 7:37-39).
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration 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(II)(A).
Regarding claim 20, Jordan in view of Kume discloses the precursor powder has a mean average particulate size of not greater than about 50 µm (0.05 to 20 µm) (Kume [0011]-[0012], [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028]). 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).
Regarding claim 25, Jordan discloses at least the first metal oxalate compound is a (di)hydrated metal oxalate compound (3:31-62, 4:1-4, 36-38).
Regarding claim 26, Jordan discloses the heating step comprises heating the precursor powder to a dehydration temperature of not greater than about 280°C (approximately 100°C or less) for a period of time (5:5-42) sufficient to remove at least 90% of water of hydration from the hydrated metal oxalate compound (contains less than 12% water because remaining water content relates to contained oxide in the product metal) (3:38-46, 3:63-4:7, 4:36-45). 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).
Regarding claim 37, Jordan discloses the step of heating the precursor powder comprises heating under a non-oxidizing (hydrogen) gas composition (3:38-50, 6:13-36).
Applicant’s specification at [0027] states “non-oxidizing gas composition, e.g., a gas composition containing little to no oxygen.”
Regarding claim 38, Jordan discloses the non-oxidizing gas composition comprises at least about 95% of nitrogen and hydrogen combined (hydrogen) (3:38-50, 6:13-36).
Regarding claim 40, Jordan discloses the compacting gas pressure is at least about 4 bar (roughly 0.3 to 30 atmospheres, 0.3 to 30 bar) (6:37-7:1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 44, Jordan discloses the mold is formed from a ceramic material (7:20-40).
Regarding claim 46, Jordan in view of Kume discloses a compacted (pelletized) magnetic body (Jordan 6:26-36) formed by a method recited in Claim 1 (Jordan 1:26-36, 3:14-16, 31-46, 6:26-7:1, 44-55, 7:25-37, 45; Kume [0001]-[0002], [0011]-[0012], [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028]). Jordan discloses the process uses metal carboxylate in the form of pellets (compacts) (6:26-36, 7:29-37). Each pellet starts as precursor powder and is heated to comprise metal particulates of the first metal. Each pellet reads on a compacted magnetic body. Further, the starting material (metal oxalate, Jordan 3:31-46, 6:44-55, 7:25-29) and process (heating under overlapping pressure, Jordan 6:37-7:1) of the prior art render obvious that claimed, such that the formation of a compacted magnetic body naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. In support, Jordan discloses breaking up the pellets (6:30-36), which, in order to break up, suggests they have formed a cohesive (compacted) body.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 3,955,961) in view of Kume (JP 2003-277814 machine translation) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chen (Chen et al. The mechanism of enhanced magnetic properties of sintered permanent magnets by substitution of Pr for Nd. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 516 (2012) 73-77.).
Regarding claim 6, Jordan is silent to the second metal oxalate compound being a second rare earth oxalate compound.
Kume discloses a method for producing a magnet body ([0001]-[0002]) using a second metal oxalate compound that is a second rare earth oxalate compound (insoluble salt of rare earth element oxalate, where rare earth is at least one rare earth, which encompasses a second rare earth) ([0010], [0016], [0023]-[0025], [0028]).
Chen discloses a magnet body (permanent magnet) (Abstract, 2. Experimental procedures) using a second metal (substituting Nd, a first metal, with Pr, A second metal) (Abstract, 2. Experimental procedures, 3. Results and discussion, 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jordan to include a second rare earth oxalate compound because the resulting rare earth alloys have high magnetic properties (Kume [0001]) due to optimized particle size (Kume [0006], [0026]) and have a homogeneous composition that suppresses the formation of unnecessary phases, resulting in high coercive force (Kume [0007]-[0008]). Further, in a rare earth alloy, replacement of a first metal Nd with a second metal Pr improve Hcj and thermal stability (Chen Abstract) and have excellent magnetic properties due to lower sintering temperature that restrains abnormal grain growth and improves clear, smooth grain boundaries (Chen 4. Conclusions).
Regarding claim 7, Jordan in view of Kume and Chen discloses the first (Jordan 3:34-36) rare earth oxalate compound is neodymium (Chen Abstract, 2. Experimental procedures, 3. Results and discussion, 4. Conclusions) oxalate (Kume [0010], [0016], [0023]-[0025], [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Jordan in view of Kume and Chen discloses the second (Jordan 1:4-8, 3:34-36, 7:10-19) metal oxalate compound is praseodymium (Chen Abstract, 2. Experimental procedures, 3. Results and discussion, 4. Conclusions) oxalate (Kume [0010], [0016], [0023]-[0025], [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan in view of Kume and Chen discloses the precursor powder further comprises particulates of iron oxalate (Jordan 3:31-46, 6:44-55, 7:25-29; Kume [0008], [0010], [0016], [0023], [0025], [0028]; magnetic alloy is Fe-based, Chen Abstract, 2. Experimental procedures).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan is silent to the precursor powder further comprising particulates of metallic boron.
Kume discloses a method for producing a magnet body ([0001]-[0002]) wherein the precursor powder further comprises particulates of metallic boron ([0041]-[0042]).
Chen discloses a Nd-Fe-B permanent magnet (1. Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix in a sufficient amount of boron to obtain a rare earth-transition metal-boron alloy (Kume [0023], [0041]), which is widely used to excellent magnetic performance (Chen 1. Introduction).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 3,955,961) in view of Kume (JP 2003-277814 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (CN 101259537 machine translation).
Regarding claim 34, Jordan is silent to the precursor conversion temperature being at least about 980°C.
Guo discloses a method for producing a magnet (10:3-5), wherein the precursor conversion temperature is at least about 980°C (reduction diffusion alloying at 1150°C) (11:3, 10, 12:1, 3, 5, 7, 13:2, 4, 6, 14:1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Jordan to reduction diffusion alloy at 1150°C to obtain an alloy powder (Guo 10:3).
Claims 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 3,955,961) in view of Kume (JP 2003-277814 machine translation) as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Mayer (US 2,636,892).
Regarding claim 47, Jordan in view of Kume discloses a compacted magnetic body as recited in Claim 46 (Jordan 1:26-36, 3:14-16, 31-46, 6:26-7:1, 44-55, 7:25-37, 45; Kume [0001]-[0002], [0011]-[0012], [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028]).
Jordan is silent to a step of sintering a compacted magnetic body as recited in Claim 46.
Mayer discloses a method for producing a sintered (solid) magnetic body (1:1-22), comprising the step of sintering a compacted magnetic body (2:27-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sinter the compacted magnetic body of Jordan I view of Kume to obtain a high density solid body with reduced shrinkage (Mayer 2:27-41) to have high magnetic permeability (1:17-22).
Regarding claim 48, Jordan in view of Kume and Mayer discloses the sintering step comprises heating the compacted magnetic body to a temperature of at least about 1130°C (sintering temperature depends upon the composition of the body to be formed with an example being not above 1150°C) (Jordan 3:1-4, 29-32). 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).
Regarding claim 49, Jordan in view of Kume and Mayer disclose the sintering step comprises heating the compacted magnetic body to a temperature of not greater than about 1350°C (sintering temperature depends upon the composition of the body to be formed with an example being not above 1150°C) (Jordan 3:1-4, 29-32). 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).
Regarding claim 50, Jordan in view of Kume and Mayer disclose the sintering step is carried out under a gas pressure of not greater than about 6.5 bar (pressing then sintering, such that sintering is not performed under pressure) (Mayer 2:27-41, 3:27-30).
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration 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(II)(A).
Regarding claim 51, Jordan in view of Kume and Mayer disclose a sintered magnetic body formed by a method recited in Claim 50 (Jordan 1:26-36, 3:1-4, 14-16, 29-46, 6:26-7:1, 44-55, 7:25-37, 45; Kume [0001]-[0002], [0011]-[0012], [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028]; Mayer 1:17-22, 2:27-41, 3:27-30).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 17, 20, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44, and 46-51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,734 (US ‘734) in view of Jordan (US 3,955,961).
US ‘734 discloses producing rare earth metal powder by reducing a rare earth metal oxalate compound in hydrogen under a pressure of at least 2 bar (claims 1-3, 14-16).
US ‘734 is silent to the heating step forming a compacted magnetic body.
Jordan discloses producing (3:31-46, 6:44-55, 6:26-7:1, 7:25-29) a compacted (pelletized) (6:26-36) magnetic body (iron magnets) (1:26-36, 3:14-16, 7:45) from metal carboxylate as oxalate (3:34-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of US ‘734 for the rare earth metal oxalate to be in the form of pellets to travel through the reduction apparatus (Jordan 7:20-40).
Jordan discloses the process uses metal carboxylate in the form of pellets (compacts) (6:26-36, 7:29-37). Each pellet starts as precursor powder and is heated to comprise metal particulates of the first metal. Each pellet reads on a compacted magnetic body. Further, the starting material (metal oxalate, Jordan 3:31-46, 6:44-55, 7:25-29) and process (heating under overlapping pressure, Jordan 6:37-7:1) of the prior art render obvious that claimed, such that the formation of a compacted body naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. In support, Jordan discloses breaking up the pellets (6:30-36), which, in order to break up, suggests they have formed a cohesive (compacted) body.
Related Art
Tailhades (US 6,464,750)
Tailhades discloses preparing powders of metals alloys using iron oxalates and rare earth metal oxalates (1:8-21, 4:1-16)) using a mixed oxalate of more than one metal with a length of 5 to 10 um that undergoes reduction with gaseous hydrogen (3:56-65, 4:50-56), where the prepared particles form a coherent porous solid under the effect of compacting pressure (4:29-33). Tailhades discloses mixing iron (oxalate) powder with other constituents to form a composition (5:26-30) by cold compaction (11:60-64) then pressing the powder to obtain a compact followed by sintering (5:31-64).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735