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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (Claim 3) in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the present claims are directed to a single inventive concept deserving full substantive consideration on the merits. This is not found persuasive because claim 3 recites that the direction of the magnetic field is parallel to the direction of the electric field while claim 4 recites that the direction of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the direction of the electric field. Thus, Species 1 and Species 2 are mutually exclusive of each other and an art that applies to Species 1 may not be applied to Species 2 and there is serious search burden to examine both species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 4 is withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are examined herein.
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 and 5-17 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 recites “deposition of the first particles above a first of the electrodes”. The meaning of this limitation is unclear. The definition of “above” is “in an extended space over and not touching”. The deposited particles are floated in the solution over the electrode, or on the electrodes? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the predefined pattern is complementary to the second predefined pattern”. The meaning of “complementary” is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of a “complementary” structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Wilde (US2014/0085022).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Wilde discloses a method of producing a magnet, comprising: adding suspensions containing NdFeB nanoparticles having magnetic anisotropy and Fe nanoparticles to an electrophoretic chamber equipped with two electrodes, applying a voltage to the electrodes to create an electric field for causing deposition of the NdFeB nanoparticles and Fe nanoparticles on one of the electrodes for forming uniformly ordered composite, and sintering the composite ([0009] to [0030]). Wilde discloses that an ordered and consolidated arrangement of the NdFeB nanoparticles and Fe nanoparticles are formed on the electrode by electrophoretic deposition ([0010] to [0014]), which meets the limitation forming a first layer comprising the first particles as recited in claim 1. Further, in view of the fact that Wilde teaches deposition of NdFeB nanoparticles and Fe nanoparticles on an electrode by an electrophoretic deposition process, the same producing method as recited in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the process disclosed by Wilde comprises layer-by-layer deposition of the composite material and meets the limitation that a first layer comprising the NdFeB nanoparticles is formed as recited in claim 1. “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 2, Wilde discloses applying a magnetic field to the electrophoretic chamber during the electrophoretic deposition for aligning magnetic orientations of the NdFeB particles ([0012] to [0019]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Wilde discloses that sintering is performed to densify the produced composite body ([0010]). Wilde does not explicitly disclose that a temperature for sintering the formed structure is less than a temperature of a melting point of the first particles. However, the definition of “sintering” is a process of making a powdered material coalesce into a solid by heating it without melting. Thus, the sintering step disclosed by Wilde meets the limitation that a temperature for sintering the formed structure is less than a temperature of a melting point of the NdFeB particles as recited in claim 17.
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.
Claim 3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilde (US2014/0085022), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rose (US 2011/0250467).
Regarding claims 3 and 15-16, Wilde discloses applying a magnetic field to the electrophoretic chamber during the electrophoretic deposition for aligning magnetic orientations of the NdFeB particles ([0012] to [0019]). Wilde does not explicitly disclose that the magnetic field is parallel to the electric field used during electrophoretic deposition. Rose teaches a method of making a composite material using electrophoretic deposition (Abstract). Rose discloses that during electrophoretic deposition, a strong magnetic field is applied parallel to the applied electric field to align the nanoparticles with their longitudinal axes parallel to the applied electric field ([0076]; [0077]; Fig. 5B). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a magnetic field parallel to the applied electric field as taught by Rose in the process of Wilde in order to align the nanoparticles with their longitudinal axes parallel to the applied electric field as disclosed by Rose. Rose further discloses that circular-shaped electrode can be used to make a circular product (Fig. 8B). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a circular-shaped electrode as taught by Rose in the process of Wilde in order to make a circular-shape magnet.
Claims 5-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilde (US2014/0085022), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naoto (US 2017/0076846).
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 9, Wilde does not disclose creating a gradient in composition, microstructure or density. Naoto teaches a method of making a NdFeB magnet (Abstract). Naoto discloses that coercivity depends on the concentration of heavy rare earth and a magnet having gradient of heavy rare earth content with magnet surface containing more heavy rare earth than the center of the magnet is produced to be used in a motor ([0007] to [0025]; Fig. 4). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnet having gradient of heavy rare earth content with magnet surface containing more heavy rare earth than the center of the magnet as taught by Naoto in the process of making the rare earth magnet of Wilde in order to make a magnet suitable to be used in a motor as disclosed by Naoto. Naoto discloses that the amount of heavy rare earth is greatest in the first layer and gradually decreases towards the center of the magnet (Fig. 4), which meets the limitation recited in claims 5, 7 and 9.
Regarding claim 6, Wilde discloses that the magnet contains NdFeB nanoparticles having magnetic anisotropy and Fe nanoparticles having magnetic anisotropy and a magnetic field is applied during the electrophoretic deposition for aligning magnetic orientations of the NdFeB particles and Fe nanoparticles ([0012] to [0019]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Regarding claims 10-12, Wilde discloses that during electrophoretic deposition, the particles preferably deposit in a gap between previously deposition particles ([0009]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 10-12.
Regarding claim 13, Naoto discloses an embodiment having heavy rare earth distribution in the second half of the magnet that is a reverse pattern of the first half of the magnet (Fig. 3A), which meets the limitation recited in claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The above cited arts do not teach that the first layer has a different magnetic orientation as the second layer.
Conclusion
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