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
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of DE 10 2020 214335.8 filed November 13, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is acknowledged of WO 2022/101447, the WIPO publication of PCT/EP2021/081593 filed November 12, 2021.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species - Binder in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant amended claim 1 to require the elected species of an “organic binder”. Applicant’s specification does not appear to support the combination of amended claim 1, “organic binder”, with withdrawn claim 4, “organic solvent”.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election and Claim Amendments filed December 16, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
December 16, 2025
Amended
1, 3
Cancelled
10
Pending
1-9, 11-14
Withdrawn
4
Under Examination
1-3, 5-9, 11-14
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 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 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 5 “the mixture comprising the magnetic base material” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 line 4 recites “a mixture of the magnetic base material and the organic binder”. Does “the mixture” of claim 1 line 5 require both the magnetic base material and the organic binder or does it only require the magnetic base material? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as “the mixture” requiring both magnetic base material and organic binder as supported by line 4.
Claim 1 lines 11-12 “-the raw form is subjected to grain refinement, wherein -the raw form is sintered” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “the raw form” refers to the same object. How “the raw form” be subject to both grain refinement and sintering, when either process would change “the raw form”? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring grain refinement and sintering in any combination after producing “the raw form”.
Claim 2 line 2 “RxTyB alloy” renders the claim indefinite. B stands for the element Boron. R and T are not element symbols. It is unclear what they represent. For the purpose of examination claim 2 will be interpreted as R representing a rare earth element and T representing at least one of iron and cobalt as supported by applicant’s specification at 3:21-23.
Claim 2 lines 2-3 “a material comprising particles of RxTyB alloy and preferably particles of rare-earth-rich phase” renders the claim indefinite. Are the particles of rare-earth-rich phase optional since they are “preferably” present or are they required to be present? How is the RxTyB alloy related to the particles of rare-earth-rich phase? Do the RxTyB alloy particles include a rare-earth-rich phase or are the rare-earth-rich phase particles separate from the RxTyB alloy particles? For the purpose of examination claim 2 will be interpreted as requiring particles of RxTyB alloy, such that particles of rare-earth-rich phase, which according to applicant’s specification at 3:14-20 are separate particles, are optional (preferable).
Claim 5 lines 4-5 “in particular the particles of the magnetic base material of which the raw form consists of” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether or not this claim limitation is required because this limitation is stated as being “in particular”. For the purpose of examination claim 5 will be interpreted as the above limitation being optional, since it is “in particular”.
Claim 5 lines 6-7 “hydrogen is at least partially, preferably completely, removed” renders the claim indefinite. This requires broadly the hydrogen to be “at least partially removed” and narrowly the hydrogen to be “completely, removed”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination claim 5 will be interpreted as requiring at least partial removal of the hydrogen in the recombination step.
Claim 6 lines 1-2 “the hydrogen intercalation step” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 line 11 recites “grain refinement”, but is silent to how grain refinement is performed and to hydrogen intercalation. Claim 5 line 2 limits the grain refinement of claim 1 line 11 to be a hydrogen intercalation step. For the purpose of examination claim 6 will be interpreted as depending from claim 5.
Claim 7 line 1 “the recombination step” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 line 11 recites “grain refinement”, but is silent to how grain refinement is performed and to recombination. Claim 5 line 2 limits the grain refinement of claim 1 line 11 to include a recombination step. For the purpose of examination claim 7 will be interpreted as depending from claim 5.
Claim 8 line 1 “the operation gas” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which does not recite an operation gas. Claim 7 line 2 recites “an operation gas”. For the purpose of examination claim 8 will be interpreted as depending from claim 7.
Claim 9 line 2 “the recombination step” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 9 depends from claim 1, which does not recite a recombination step. Claim 5 line 2 recites “a recombination step”. For the purpose of examination claim 9 will be interpreted as depending from claim 5.
Claim 12 lines 2-3 “at a predetermined sinter-temperature, preferably a temperature of at least 900 °C to at most 1200 °C” renders the claim indefinite. Is the sinter-temperature of at least 900 °C to at most 1200 °C optional since it is “preferably” or is it required? Further, claim 12 requires broadly a “sinter-temperature” and narrowly a sinter-temperature of “at least 900 °C to at most 1200 °C”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination claim 12 will be interpreted as requiring a non-limited “sinter-temperature”, such that the range of “at least 900 °C to at most 1200 °C” is optional (preferably).
Claim 13 line 1 “the process gas” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, which does not recite a process gas. Claim 12 lines 3-4 recites “a process gas”. For the purpose of examination claim 13 will be interpreted as depending from claim 12.
Claims 3, 11, and 14 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 1-3, 5-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa (US 2009/0032147) in view of Ruhrig (WO 2016/008610 machine translation) and Kim (WO 2019/212102 with citations from US 2020/0406361).
Regarding claim 1, Nozawa discloses a method for producing a permanent magnet from a magnetic base material ([0002], [0032]), wherein
- the magnetic base material is mixed with an organic binder ([0045]), wherein
- a mixture of the magnetic base material and the organic binder is obtained ([0045]), wherein
- the mixture comprising the magnetic base material is shaped (compacted), wherein a raw form (compact) is created ([0033], [0045], [0102]-[0104]), wherein
- the raw form is subjected to grain refinement (HDDR to obtain fine crystal grains) ([0033], [0075], [0108]-[0117]), wherein
- the raw form is sintered (densification heat treatment), wherein the permanent magnet is produced ([0078], [0118]-[0120]).
Nozawa is silent to the raw form being produced by a method selected from a group consisting of injection moulding, additive manufacturing, and extrusion.
Ruhrig discloses a method for producing a permanent magnet from a magnetic base material ([0002], [0007]), wherein the raw form is produced by a method selected from a group consisting of injection moulding, additive manufacturing, and extrusion (injection molding) ([0009], [0011], [0016], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Nozawa to form the compact by injection molding to produce a body with high density using magnetic powder with a preferred magnetic direction (Ruhrig [0007], [0011]). Further, an injection molding process advantageously allows for the production of a wider variety of magnet shapes relative to a pressing or compaction process.
Nozawa is silent to the organic binder being at least partially removed from the raw form prior to grain refinement.
Ruhrig discloses a method for producing a permanent magnet from a magnetic base material ([0002], [0007]), wherein the organic binder is at least partially removed from the raw form (brownling produced by removing binder from the greenling) ([0009], [0011], [0026]).
Kim discloses a method for producing a permanent magnet from a magnetic base material ([0001], [0021]-[0028]), wherein the organic binder is at least partially removed from the raw form prior to grain refinement ([0033]-[0034], [0065], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Nozawa to remove the organic binder to form high-density bodies (Ruhrig [0011]), where removal prior to grain refinement (HDDR) prevents impure organic matter from interfering with the subsequent HDDR process (Kim [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Nozawa discloses as magnetic base material is used a material comprising particles of RxTyB (R-T-Q alloy of R-Fe-B) alloy ([0033], [0085]-[0096]) and preferably particles of rare-earth-rich phase.
Regarding claim 3, Nozawa in view of Ruhrig and Kim discloses the organic binder is completely removed (Ruhrig [0009], [0011], [0026]) from the raw form prior to grain refinement (HDDR) (Kim [0033]-[0034], [0065], [0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Nozawa discloses
- the grain refinement comprises a hydrogen intercalation step (HD) and a recombination step (DR) ([0033], [0075], [0108]-[0117]), wherein
- in the hydrogen intercalation step the raw form, in particular the particles of the magnetic base material of which the raw form consists of, is reacted with hydrogen (HD are hydrogenation and disproportionation reactions) ([0033], [0110]-[0116]), wherein
- in the recombination step the hydrogen is at least partially, preferably completely, removed (DR are desorption and recombination reactions) ([0033], [0110], [0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Nozawa discloses the hydrogen intercalation step (HD) is carried out in an atmosphere comprising hydrogen (hydrogen gas atmosphere or mixed atmosphere of hydrogen gas and inert gas) under a predetermined intercalation-pressure (hydrogen partial pressure of about 1 kPa to about 500 kPa) for a predetermined intercalation-duration (about 5 minutes to about 10 hours), wherein the raw form is heated to a predetermined intercalation-temperature (approximately 550°C to less than approximately 1000°C) during the hydrogen intercalation step ([0111]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 7, Nozawa discloses the recombination step (DR) is carried out in an atmosphere comprising an operation gas or consisting of the operation gas (vacuum or inert gas atmosphere) under a predetermined recombination-pressure (low hydrogen partial pressure of about 10 kPa or less) and a predetermined recombination- temperature (about 550°C to less than about 1000°C) for a predetermined recombination-duration (about 5 minutes to about 10 hours) ([0117]).
Regarding claim 8, Nozawa discloses the operation gas is selected from a group consisting of hydrogen, argon, and helium (inert gas atmosphere such as Ar or He) ([0111], [0117]).
Regarding claim 9, Nozawa discloses the raw form is cooled to a predetermined cool-down temperature during or after the recombination step (densification heat treatment carried out discontinuously using mutually different systems necessarily results in cool-down between the different systems) ([0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Nozawa discloses the raw form is produced in an externally applied magnetic field ([0104]).
Regarding claim 12, Nozawa discloses the raw form is sintered (densification heat treatment) at a predetermined sinter-pressure (without compaction) and at a predetermined sinter-temperature, preferably a temperature of at least 900 °C to at most 1200 °C (about 750°C to less than about 1000°C), in an atmosphere consisting of a process gas (vacuum or inert gas) for a predetermined sinter-duration (about 5 minutes to about 10 hours) ([0078], [0118]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 13, Nozawa discloses the process gas is selected from a group consisting of argon and helium (inert gas atmosphere which may be He or Ar) ([0119]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa (US 2009/0032147) in view of Ruhrig (WO 2016/008610 machine translation) and Kim (WO 2019/212102 with citations from US 2020/0406361) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeshita (CN 1065151 machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Nozawa is silent to the sintered raw form being posttreated by hot isostatic pressing.
Takeshita discloses a method for producing a permanent magnet from a magnetic base material ([0001]), wherein the sintered raw form is posttreated by hot isostatic pressing ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to posttreat the sintered raw form by hot isostatic pressing (HIP) to fully densify the magnet (Takeshita [0037]) while suppressing grain growth (Takeshita [0021]).
Related Art
Ikegami (JP H09-148163 machine translation)
Ikegami discloses an R-T-B bonded magnet ([0001], [0010]) manufactured by subjecting R-T-B alloy powder to hydrogenation and recrystallization after forming into a compact to improve the change in magnetic properties ([0012]).
Nishiuchi (US 2009/0123774)
Nishiuchi discloses producing a R-Fe-B magnet using R-Fe-B alloy powder that is compacted under a magnetic field then the compact is subject to hydrogenation and disproportionation reactions followed by desorption and recombination reactions ([0040]-[0041]), then subject to densification heat treatment such as by hot pressing or pulse electric current sintering ([0118]). Nishiuchi discloses mixing the R-Fe-B magnet powder with a binder then compacting ([0057]).
Nozawa ‘968 (JP 2009-123968 machine translation)
Nozawa ‘968 discloses a R-Fe-B magnet ([0001]) produced by preparing R-Fe-B alloy powder, molding the powder to produce a green compact, subjecting the green compact to heat treatment in hydrogen to causing hydrogenation and disproportionation reactions, then heat treating to cause dehydrogenation and recombination ([0023]), where sintering progresses during HDDR, but not complete densification ([0049]). Nozawa ‘968 discloses the process does not require resin to bind the powder particles together ([0051]).
Kiyomiya (JP H06-112027 machine translation)
Kiyomiya discloses producing Fe-B-R magnetic materials ([0001], [0009]) by producing R-Fe-B alloy, compacting the powder in a magnetic field, treating the powder in hydrogen, then sintering ([0010]), where dehydrogenation occurs at the same time ([0016]).
Ono (JP 2002-075715 machine translation)
Ono discloses a magnetic material ([0001], [0006]) manufactured by raw material alloy powder containing rare earth elements compressed and molded in a magnetic field then subjected to hydrogen and dehydrogenation and sintering while pressure is applied ([0016]-[0017]).
Reppel (US 6,599,465)
Reppel discloses a magnet rich in rare earths (1:9-10, 13) manufactured by mixing NdFeB powder with NdH2 powder, orienting in a magnetic field, compacting, and sintering (4:10-18).
Yue ‘270 (CN 104690270 machine translation)
Yue ‘270 discloses mixing NdFeB powder with nano neodymium hydride powder, orienting and pressing in a magnetic field, dehydrogenating, then sintering ([0016]-[0017]).
Yue ‘700 (CN 107424700 machine translation)
Yue ‘700 discloses mixing NdFeB powder with neodymium hydride powder, orienting in a magnetic field, pressing into shape, cold isostatic pressing, dehydrogenating, then sintering ([0017]-[0020]).
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