DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-9 are pending and currently under review.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are cancelled.
Claims 8-9 are newly added.
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 amendment filed 6/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-6 and newly submitted claim(s) 8-9 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 4-6 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 sintering is completed as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this feature step would have been obvious in view of the prior art. 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. completion) 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]. 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. 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 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 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].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8-9 are directed to the method of claim 1, wherein a particular magnetic field strength range is recited. There is no prior art of record that teaches all of the claimed limitations together.
The closest prior art of record is the aforementioned prior art relied upon above. However, as noted by applicants in the remarks filed 6/08/2026, Mino et al. is limited to lower magnetic field strengths and therefore the aforementioned prior art combination does not meet or suggest the claimed features together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mino et al. requires a weak magnetic field which does not meet the claims. The examiner cannot concur. Independent claim 1 does not recite any particular magnetic field strength.
Applicant then argues that Ogawara et al. requires avoiding reaction between magnet particles and the binder and further only teaches SmFeN in passing. Applicant’s arguments is not entirely clear to the examiner. One of ordinary skill would understand that the aforementioned teachings of Ogawara et al. relied upon by applicant do not materially affect or teach away from the disclosure of Sakuma et al. Furthermore, the mere disclosure of SmFeN in passing has no bearing on the combination wherein it would be obvious to modify the method of Sakuma et al. with the consideration of Ogawara et al. explained above where both references disclose SmFeN magnet materials.
Applicant argues that the field orientation in Nishiuchi et al. is optional and that there is no evidence to conclude that field orientation is performed until completion of sintering. Applicant’s arguments is not entirely clear to the examiner. Nishiuchi et al. expressly teaches a motivation for magnetic field alignment, such that combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. The examiner further cannot concur because Nishiuchi et al. expressly teaches performing field orientation during sintering. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that processing of materials occurs for the entire duration of processing (ie. entirety of sintering). If applicant is of the position that one of ordinary skill would halt magnetic field orientation at some point during sintering despite the broad, clear teaching of performing sintering under magnetic field, the examiner cannot concur absent concrete evidence to the contrary which has not been presented.
Applicant then argues that both Ogawara et al. and Nishuchi et al. do not provide motivations to modify the method of Sakuma et al. The examiner cannot concur. Express motivations or obviousness rationales have been clearly provided above.
Applicant argues that Dickens only teaches two options of axial or perpendicular magnetic field, which does not meet the claim. The examiner cannot concur. A clear obviousness rationale under MPEP 2143(I)(E) has been provided, which applicant does not address.
Applicant then argues that Ozeki et al. teaches away from the prior art combination because no field is applied during sintering in Ozeki et al. The examiner cannot concur. Firstly, Ozeki et al. expressly teaches a magnetic field during sintering [0023]. Secondly, Ozeki et al. merely teaches that a first pressure-less sintering can be performed prior to pressure sintering. It is not clear to the examiner, nor has it been made apparent by applicant, as to how this extra step teaches away from the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights