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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 and 5-6 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claim 9 is withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are examined herein.
Status of Previous Rejection
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is maintained.
The rejections of claims 1-3 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 806(2019)1267-1275) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 806(2019)1267-1275), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 2020/0075202) is maintained.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
With respect to the recitation “AlB2-type” in line 2 of claim 2, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). MPEP 2173.05(b)(II)(E). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 806(2019)1267-1275), and further in view of Nakamura (US 2020/0075202).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a sintered rare-earth magnet comprising R2Fe14B main-phase grains wherein R is Nd and Pr (Abstract; Table 2, Sample 0.50Ti; Page 1270, left column, 2nd paragraph). Xu further discloses that the magnet contains intergranular grain boundaries that form between two mutually adjoining main-phase grains and grain boundary triple junctions surrounded by three or more main-phase grains, wherein the main-phase grains, the intergranular grain boundaries and the grain boundary triple junctions all contain TiB2 crystals (Page 1272, left column), which meets the limitations recited in claim 1.
Xu discloses that the magnet contains 16.01 at% R, 74.71 at% Fe, 1.01 at% Co, 5.72 at% B, 0.14 at% Cu, 0.47 at% Ga, 1.44 at% Al and 0.5 at% Ti (Table 2, Sample 0.50 Ti), which meets the recited amount of R, M1, M2 and B in claim 1. Xu is silent on the amount of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.
Nakamura teaches a sintered RTB magnet (Abstract) and discloses that the content of O is preferably less than 700 ppm, the content of C is preferably less than 500 ppm, and the content of N is preferably less than 400 ppm in order to make a magnet having high coercivity ([0051]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnet containing less than 700 ppm O, less than 500 ppm C and less than 400 ppm N as taught by Nakamura in the process of Xu in order to make a magnet having high coercivity as disclosed by Nakamura. The amount of C, O and N disclosed by Nakamura overlaps the recited amount of O, C and N in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited amount of O, C and N is a prima facie case of obviousness over Xu in view of Nakamura.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses that TiB2 has a hexagonal structure (Page 1272, left column), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses that the TiB2 is needle-like with a thickness of 10 nm (Page 1272, left column; Fig. 8 (c)), which meets the recited thickness in claim 3. Xu does not disclose that the TiB2 crystal has a flat hexagonal prismatic shape. The ADF-STEM image shown in Fig. 8 (c) of Xu is two -dimensional, which is impossible to accurately determine the three-dimensional shape of the TiB2. The shape of the TiB2 in Xu depends on the magnet composition and the processing conditions of making the sintered magnet.
Xu discloses that the magnet contains 16.01 at% R, 74.71 at% Fe, 1.01 at% Co, 5.72 at% B, 0.14 at% Cu, 0.47 at% Ga, 1.44 at% Al and 0.5 at% Ti (Table 2, Sample 0.50 Ti), which meets the major composition recited in claim 4.
Xu discloses a process of making the magnet comprising sintering at 960-973 ºC for 6 hours, first annealing at 850 ºC for 3 hours and second annealing at 520-680 ºC for 3 hours, which meets the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification. In view of the fact that Xu teaches a magnet that meets the major composition recited in claim 4 and a method of making the magnet that meets the processing parameters disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the TiB2 in Xu to have the recited shape in claim 3. “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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses that the magnet contains 0.5 at% Ti (Table 2, Sample 0.50 Ti). Xu does not disclose that the magnet contains at least 0.05 at% Zr. Nakamura teaches a sintered RTB magnet (Abstract) and discloses that the magnet may contain a plurality of Ti, Zr, Nb and Hf to suppress abnormal grain growth ([0050]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnet containing both Ti and Zr as taught by Nakamura in the process of Xu in order to suppress abnormal grain growth as disclosed by Nakamura. Nakamura discloses an example containing 0.1 mass% Zr ([0101]), which converts to 0.06 at% and meets the recited Zr amount in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses that the sintered magnet contains 25% of boundary phase and among which 7% is R6(Fe, Ga)14 phase (Fig. 6) by area ratio. Thus, the area ratio of R6(Fe, Ga)14 phase in all grain boundary phase is 7/25=28%. The volume ratio of R6(Fe, Ga)14 phase in all grain boundary phase is 28 vol% that meets the recited limitation in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses that the average grain size is 2.6 µm (Page 1270, left column, 2nd paragraph), which meets the limitation recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses that the magnet does not contain heavy rare earth (Title), which meets the limitation recited in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicants argued that the term "AlB2-type crystal structure" in claim 2 is a well- known technical term, and its scope of the term is clear to a person skilled in the art. It is also clear from documents such as US 2024/00120531 Al (paragraph [0116]) and US 2012/0108438 Al (paragraph [0040]) that the term "AlB2-type crystal structure" is used as a common technical term.
In response, AlB2 structure is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Add “type” to AlB2 broaden the meaning of AlB2 structure and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of "AlB2-type crystal structure". The applicants are suggested to delete the word “type”.
Second, the applicants argued that in Nakamura US '202, the reduction of impurities (amounts of O, C, and N) can be achieved by using press-less process method (PLP method) as disclosed at paragraphs [0006], [0007], [0077] and [0094]. Thus, Nakamura's invention is premised on a manufacturing method using PLP method. On the other hand, in the Xu reference, sintered magnets are produced by using a conventional manufacturing method such as a pressing process, rather than the PLP method. The amounts of O, C, and N disclosed in Nakamura US '202 are based on the assumption that the PLP method will reduce the amounts thereof. It is not obvious to a person skilled in the art that sintered magnets produced by conventional methods (rather than the PLP method) can be produced with the low amounts of O, C, and N disclosed in Nakamura US '202. In reality, it would be difficult even for a person skilled in the art to combine the two techniques so as to arrive at the present invention.
In response, both Xu and Nakamura disclose a PLP method. Xu didn’t use a pressing process (See Page 1268, left column, 3rd paragraph) as asserted by the applicants. Since both arts teach using PLP method to make a sintered RTB magnet and Nakamura discloses that the content of O is preferably less than 700 ppm, the content of C is preferably less than 500 ppm, and the content of N is preferably less than 400 ppm in order to make a magnet having high coercivity ([0051]), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make an RTB magnet containing less than 700 ppm O, less than 500 ppm C and less than 400 ppm N in the process of Xu in order to make a magnet having high coercivity as disclosed by Nakamura.
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733