DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending and currently under review.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-7 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (JP2020161704, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Mino et al. (US 2004/0112467), further in view of either one of Ogawara et al. (JP2017193773, machine translation referred to herein) or Nishiuchi et al. (JP2005039089, machine translation referred to herein), and further in view of either one of Dickens et al. (US 5,173,206) or Ozeki et al. (US 2017/0178773).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Sakuma et al. discloses a method of making a rare earth magnets [0001]; wherein said method includes a step of providing a rare earth magnet powder of samarium, iron, and nitrogen having a Th2Zn17 or Th2Ni17 structure [0001, 0004, 0025, 0038]. Sakuma et al. further teaches processing said powder by compression molding said powder under magnetic field prior to pressure sintering (ie. imparting magnetic orientation before sintering), followed by pressure sintering [0029-0032, 0081].
Sakuma et al. does not expressly teach that said magnetic field is applied with both a permanent magnetic positioned with the powder and electromagnetic coil as claimed. Mino et al. discloses that it is known to perform magnetic alignment during compression molding using magnetization provided from both a permanent magnet and an electromagnetic coil as assisting magnetic fields to achieve a desirable, optimized aligning magnetic field strength [abstract, 0045, 0075]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Sakuma et al. by utilizing both a permanent magnet and an electromagnetic coil to provide an alignment field for the aforementioned benefit expressly taught by Mino et al.
Sakuma et al. does not expressly teach that the magnetic field application is extended at least until interbonding of powder particles develops as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this feature step would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Firstly, the examiner notes that “interbonding” of particles merely refers to the concept of sintering as recognized by one of ordinary skill. Ogawara et al. discloses that it is known to perform sintering of Sm-Fe-N rare earth magnet powders under applied magnetic field from start of sintering to finish of sintering (ie. magnetic field applied up to interbonding of particles) to obtain desirable magnetic properties [0017, 0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Sakuma et al. by continuing the magnetic field application from molding into and throughout sintering for the benefits taught by Ogawara et al. Alternatively, Nishiuchi et al. discloses preparing Sm-Fe-N rare earth magnets including steps of shaping (ie. compression molding) and sintering (ie. interbonding) under magnetic field to improve magnetic properties [0048, 0057-0062]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Sakuma et al. by continuing the magnetic field application from molding into and throughout sintering for the benefits taught by Nishiuchi et al.
Sakuma et al. does not expressly teach that the magnetic field is applied in a direction different from the pressure direction of pressure sintering. Dickens et al. discloses that it is known to control alignment of magnetic field during processing of rare earth sintered magnets to be applied either axially or perpendicular (ie. different) to the applied pressure to achieve a preferred orientation as desired [col.42 ln.64 to col.43 ln.5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a perpendicular magnetic field (ie. different from pressure direction) as preferred and desired by one of ordinary skill as expressly taught by Dickens et al. Alternatively, the prior art expressly teaches that there are a finite number (ie. two options) of solutions for magnetic field alignment during sintering, such that one of ordinary skill would have been able to pursue the known number of solutions (ie. either axial or perpendicular alignment) to arrive at the predictable result of a desired magnetic alignment orientation. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Alternatively, Ozeki et al. also teaches that it is known to perform pressure sintering under magnetic alignment wherein pressure is applied perpendicular to a direction of applied magnetic field such that application of pressure does not influence the axis of easy magnetization of the compact [abstract, 0007, 0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by applying magnetic field in a direction different from pressure direction of sintering for the aforementioned benefit.
Regarding claims 4-5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Sakuma et al. further teaches that the magnetic powder includes Zn powder that coats the surface of the magnetic powder [0087-0090].
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Ogawara et al. discloses application of the magnetic field until the end of sintering. Alternatively, although Nishiuchi et al. does not expressly teach a duration of the applied magnetic field, Nishiuchi et al. expressly teaches application of said magnetic field during the sintering process as stated above. One of ordinary skill would understand that desired application of magnetic field during sintering would last throughout the sintering process absent some specific teaching that applied magnetic field should be prematurely removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection over Mino et al. above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734