Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Request to Continue Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 05/20/26 has been entered. Claims 24 has been newly added and finds support in at least [Table 3]. Claims 10 – 24 are pending. Claims 19 – 21 remain withdrawn. Claims 10 – 18 and 22 – 24 are under examination.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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)(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 10 – 18 and 22 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda (US2021/0043343)
Regarding claims 10, 13 – 15, 17 – 18, 22 and 24, Takeda discloses a rare earth magnet produced by sintering [0056]. The magnet includes a R2Fe14B crystal structure [0010] and a grain boundary phase [0040], meeting the claimed limitation of the main phase and a grain boundary phase. Takeda teaches an example composition which contains [Talbe 13, 5-3]:
Nd: 8.69 at% Sm: 0.89 at% and La 3.95%
Wherein this meets the claimed composition of a rare earth magnet comprising at least Nd, La, and Sm.
Wherein this meets the claimed composition ratio of La being different from Sm.
This meets the claimed composition of claims 13 – 15 of the composition ratio of Nd being higher than Sm.
This meets the claimed composition of claims 17 – 18 that the composition ratio of Nd is greater than the sum of La and Sm.
This meets the claimed composition of claim 24 of the compositon ratio of La being greater than Sm.
Takeda teaches that the sintered magnet example is produced by pulverizing [0138], molding [0139], sintering in a temperature range of 1000°C [0141], which falls within the claimed range of claim 22, and a second heating step at 400 – 900°C, which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 22, and the can be performed for at least an hour [0166], which is within the claimed range of claim 22.
Takeda does not expressly teach that the content of Sm is higher in the main phase than the grain boundary phase. However, Takeda teaches a substantially identical compositon and process (with overlapping parameters) to the claimed invention. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Takeda would possess the claimed feature.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
The examiner notes that although the second heating step of Takeda is overlapping in scope, the claims are directed to a product and "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” (MPEP 2113 I). To this, Takeda anticipates the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 11, Takeda teaches the invention as applied in claim 10. Takeda does not expressly teach that the content of La is higher in the grain boundary phase than the main boundary phase.
However, Takeda teaches a substantially identical compositon and process (with overlapping parameters) to the claimed invention. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Takeda would possess the claimed feature.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Takeda teaches the invention as applied in claims 10 – 11. Takeda does not explicitly state that Sm or (Sm and La) are part of an oxide (NdO) phase due to substitution.
However, Takeda teaches a substantially identical compositon and process (with overlapping parameters) to the claimed invention. Takeda also explicitly describes that oxygen is present in the sintered magnet [0120]. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Takeda would possess the claimed feature.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 23, Takeda teaches the invention as applied in claim 11. Takeda does not explicitly disclose that the La is substituted at a Fe(c) site of a R2Fe14B crystal structure.
However, Takeda teaches a substantially identical compositon and process (with overlapping parameters) to the claimed invention. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Takeda would possess the claimed feature.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments thereto have overcome the previous rejection of:
Claims 10 – 18 and 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (JP6359232, using espacenet translation, cited with the OA of 09/02/25)
However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of:
Claims 10 – 18 and 22 – 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda (US2021/0043343)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP3522178 – Rare earth magnet containing La with grain boundary phase modified by modifier that can be include Sm
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights