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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The original specification and claims do not describe the organic binder as “resistance building substance.” The specification describes mixing the magnetic base material with a “resistance building substance” and an organic binder. Because pg 4, lines 4-8, describe the organic binder with the same group of materials as used for the organic substance, there is no issue of new matter. However the description does not correspond with the current way in which organic binder is claimed as a resistance building substance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 requires that the electric resistance layer is formed from the at least one resistance substance building substance selected from organic substance and an organic binder. It is not clear how claim 11 can further limit claim 1 by claiming that the electric resistance layer is generated by pretreatment gas, which limits neither the organic substance nor organic binder of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3, 12, 13, 15, and 20 are 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 “in at least one previous step of the method” from the resistance building substances, as claimed (the binder coating the particles during the molding step, a previous step of the method) (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 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.
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.
Claims 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 claim 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP '055 does not explicitly disclose a temperature with respect to the mixing of the magnetic powder with the insulator. The disclosed temperature relates exclusively to the mixing of the magnetic powder with the binder.
Moreover, JP '055 discloses exclusively inorganic compounds as resistance building substance. In particular, the specification discloses fluorides comprising at least one compound selected from a group consisting of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, and a rare-earth element. The compounds CaF2, SrF2, and NdF3 are explicitly mentioned in JP '055. Choi and Mori disclose organic substances (PFOA), rare-earth compounds (R-oxide particles), and ceramics (glass powder) as resistance building substances. However, these documents do not imply that the organic substance is selected from a group consisting of a solvent, an oxygen-containing polymer, a halogen-containing polymer, a nitrogen- containing polymer, a carbon-containing polymer, a silicon-containing polymer, a sulfur- containing polymer, and a boron-containing polymer. Furthermore, the prior art does not indicate that an organic binder is used as a resistance building substance.
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing. The present claim does not require that the claimed organic substances are met and only requires that either an organic substance, organic binder or both is mixed with magnetic base material at 60-1100C, the base material shaped, the raw form sintered and “in at least one previous step of the method,” an electrical resistance layer is formed from the organic substance and/or binder between particles of the base material.
JP ‘055 discloses kneading (mixing) magnetic powder with organic binder under heating at 70 C to coat the magnetic powder, shaping then sintering which meets the present claim. Per claim 3, the organic binder can be fully removed (encompassed by “at least partially removed”) before sintering. Thus JP ‘055 meets the claim by having binder coating the particles (i.e. between particles) in the shaping step before sintering, thus a coating on the powder in a previous step of the method encompassed by “at least one previous step” and thus inherently result in an electric resistance layer between particles due to the binder coating.
Claim 1 in light of claim 3 does not require the binder to be between particles after the sintering step, and it is not clear how the binder can be present after sintering if fully removed before sintering. Further, by “in at least one previous step of the method, claim 1 does require that there be an electric resistance layer between particles in the produced permanent magnet after the raw form is sintered. Additionally, after sintering, the permanent magnet is no longer the powdered magnetic base material which is initially mixed and shaped to prepare a raw form.
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 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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
Prosecution Insights