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
The indication of allowable subject matter has been withdrawn in view of the newly found prior art.
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 15 and 16 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 15 claims “completely embracing covering” which is not clear if the claim is directed to layer completely covering at least one particle or the claim is directed to “embracing” covering but not limited to covering. It is not clear if “embracing” and “covering” are meant to be the same.
The term “finely” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not provide any guidance on what is distribution that is considered “finely.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H10163055 A (JP ‘055).
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘055 discloses a method of manufacture of high electric resistance rare earth permanent magnet comprising:
kneading (mixing) magnet powder with insulator powder and binder under heating at 70 C, the binder coating the magnet powder and fixing the insulator powder to the magnet powder;
molding the mixture into a shape, the binder fixing the insulator powder maintaining insulating properties between magnet powder during molding;
debinding; and
densification by sintering to form a high electric resistance rare earth permanent magnet.
By the binder coating the magnet powder and fixing the insulator powder such that during molding insulating properties between magnet powder is maintained and by debinding followed sintering to manufacture a high electric resistance rare earth permanent magnet, an electrical resistance layer of lower electrical conductivity than the magnet powder is formed between particles of the magnet powder and formed from the resistance building substances (binder and insulator powder between particles), as claimed (Translation, Abstract [0004-006]).
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘055 discloses R2T14B magnet powder of rare earth-transition metal-boron.
Regarding claim 20, JP ‘055 discloses R2T14B magnet powder of rare earth-transition metal-boron, and example of Nd12.5FebalCo17.5B6.6Ga0.2Zr0.1Si0.1. Additionally discloses NdF as the insulator powder. Thus magnet powder made of particles of a rare-earth-rich phase.
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘055 discloses paraffinic hydrocarbon binder (organic binder) as part of the mixture and debinding to remove the binder before sintering.
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘055 discloses paraffinic hydrocarbon binder and NdF powder as insulator, thus organic substance and rare-earth compound.
Regarding claim 21, JP ‘055 discloses paraffinic hydrocarbon binder and NdF powder as insulator, thus organic substance and rare-earth compound.
Regarding claim 6, JP ‘055 discloses paraffinic hydrocarbon binder, thus carbon-containing polymer [0004].
Regarding claim 7, JP ‘055 discloses NdF insulator powder, thus fluorine-containing rare-earth compound [0004].
Regarding claim 12, JP ‘055 discloses molding under pressure, thus cold pressing [0006].
Regarding claim 13, JP ‘055 discloses molding in a magnetic field [0006].
Regarding claim 15, JP ‘055 discloses the binder coating the magnet powder. Because the binder coats the magnet powder and is debinded from the magnet powder, electrical resistance layer is formed as completely covering of at least one of the particles of the magnetic base material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, JP ‘055 discloses the binder coating the magnet powder and fixing the insulator powder to the magnet powder. Because the insulator is in the form of powder on the magnetic powder, the electrical resistance layer is formed as a non-closed covering of at least one of the particles of the magnetic base material and in the form of finely distributed particles arranged between the particles of the magnetic base material, as claimed.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H10163055 A as applied to claim 1, further in view of Endo et al. US 5,858,124.
JP ‘055 discloses using compound to increase electrical resistance and teaches using fluoride compounds of alkali, alkaline earth and rare earth metals but does not teach using any of an oxide, carbide or nitride ceramic.
Endo teaches that to increase electrical resistance of rare earth magnets, compounds that can be used include fluorides and oxides of Li, Na, Mg, Ca, Ba and Sr, alone or in combination (col. 3, lines 15-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used oxide of Li, Na, Mg, Ca, Ba or Sr as an alternative to, or in combination with, fluoride compound of alkali, alkaline earth and rare earth metal used in the process of JP ‘055, as taught by Endo as compounds used to increase electrical resistance of rare earth magnets.
Claims 9, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H10163055 A as applied to claim 1, further in view of Burkhardt WO 2017055170 (Burkhardt)
Burkhardt is in a similar field of endeavor of making permanent magnets. Burkhardt teaches to react the starting rare earth material powder with a hydrogen-containing gas to form a inertized rare earth compound on the powders before the binder debinding step so that the risk of formation of oxides or carbides of the rare earth element during binder removal if significantly reduced, thereby preventing deterioration of magnetic properties of the magnet. The conversion into inerted compound in hydrogen-containing gas can be carried out on the binder-free powder or mixture of the powder and binder material, and carried out at temperature of 15-200C (Translation pgs 3-6).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have exposed the magnet powder of JP ‘055 to hydrogen-containing gas either before mixing with the binder or during mixing with the binder, as taught by Burkhardt, to form a inertized rare earth compound on the powders before the binder debinding step so that the risk of formation of oxides or carbides of the rare earth element during binder removal if significantly reduced, thereby preventing deterioration of magnetic properties of the magnet.
Exposing to hydrogen-containing gas, during kneading (mixing) under temperature as taught by JP ‘055, meets claim 9 as Burkhardt teaches conversion into inerted compound in hydrogen-containing gas under temperature of 15-200 C can be carried out on the mixture of the powder and binder material.
Exposing to hydrogen-containing gas before mixing with the binder as taught by Burkhardt meets claim 11 of pretreating with a pretreatment gas, as Burkhardt teaches conversion into inerted compound in hydrogen-containing gas under temperature of 15-200 C can be carried out before mixing with the binder.
Regarding claim 14, JP ‘055 discloses debinding and sintering under vacuum.
Burkhardt teaches debinding polymer binder under vacuum, inert gas and/or under hydrogen (pg 9).
I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the debinding in the process of JP ‘055 under any of vacuum, inert gas and/or hydrogen, as taught by Burkhardt as atmospheres known for debinding binder to form permanent magnet. Thus use of argon-containing gas and or hydrogen-containing gas would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to debind the molded shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571) 272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Yvonne L Eyler can be reached at (571) 272-1200. 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.
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759