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. Claim Objections Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 39 is dependent from claim 36 . Parent c laim 36 is not a method claim, but rather is drawn to a material. Appropriate correction is required. 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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections. Claim s 20-30, 34, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002-43109 A to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto) provided with a machine translation in the IDS filed 5/18/23. Regarding claim 20 , Yamamoto discloses a method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder, the method comprising: a phosphate treatment of adding an inorganic acid to a slurry containing an SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder, water, and a phosphate compound to adjust a pH of the slurry to a range of 2 or less (para [001 0 ] -[0011] ), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1 to 4.5 to form a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder having a surface coated with a phosphate (para [0013]) . See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists ’. Regarding claim 2 1 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 20, wherein a content of a phosphate in the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder is 0.05 to 3 parts by weight (para [0014]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 0.5 mass%. See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above. Regarding claim 2 2 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 20, but is silent regarding the limitation “ wherein in the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder formed in the phosphate treatment, a phosphate coating present on a surface of the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder has a region in which an Sm atomic concentration is higher than an Sm atomic concentration in the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder ” . However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘W here 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 … "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." … Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product ’. The powders overlap and are made by overlapping methods. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Yamamoto powder to have overlapping properties including but not limited to overlapping Sm concentrations, absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 2 3 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 20, wherein in the phosphate treatment, the adjusting of the pH of the slurry is carried out over a period of 30 minutes (para [0011]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 10 minutes or longer. Regarding claim 2 4 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 20, wherein in the phosphate treatment, the pH of the slurry is adjusted to a range of 2 (para [0011]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 1.6 to 3.9. Regarding claim 2 5 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 20, further comprising, after the phosphate treatment, oxidation by heat treating the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder in an oxygen-containing atmosphere at a temperature in a range of 130°C to 300°C (para [0007], which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 150°C to 250°C. See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above. Regarding claim 26 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 20, wherein the phosphate compound used in the phosphate treatment includes an inorganic phosphate compound (para [0010]). Regarding claim 27 , Yamamoto discloses a phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder having a phosphate content of 0.05 to 3 parts by weight (para [0014]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 0.5 mass%. See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above. The reference is silent regarding an exothermic onset temperature according to differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of 170°C or higher . However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The reference teaches an overlapping powder made by an onlapping method. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect an exothermic onset temperature according to differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of 170°C or higher, absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 2 8 , Yamamoto discloses the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27, but is silent regarding the limitation “ wherein in an XRD diffraction pattern of the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powders, a ratio (I)/(II) of a diffraction peak intensity (I) of a (110) plane of αFe to a diffraction peak intensity (II) of a (300) plane is 2.0 X 10 ⁻ ² or less ” . The reference teaches an overlapping SmFeN-based powder made by an onlapping method. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect overlapping XRD patterns , absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 2 9 , Yamamoto discloses the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27, and does not teach or suggest any carbon content. Therefore, the Yamamoto phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder is expected to have no carbon, which falls within the instantly claimed carbon content range of 1000 ppm or less. Regarding claim 30 , Yamamoto discloses the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27, but is silent regarding the limitation “ wherein a phosphate coating present on a surface of the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder has a region in which an Sm atomic concentration is higher than an Sm atomic concentration in the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder ” . However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The powders overlap and are made by overlapping methods. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Yamamoto powder to have overlapping properties including but not limited to overlapping Sm concentrations, absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 34 , Yamamoto discloses the method for producing a bonded magnet compound according to claim 31, wherein a particle size distribution of the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder is a mono-dispersion , 1 to 2 µm (para [0008]), substantially uniform or monodisperse . Regarding claim s 36 and 39 , Yamamoto discloses a bonded magnet compound (para [0046]-[0047]). Claim 36 is a product by process claim. It is noted that Yamamoto does not explicitly teach the claimed process as written, however, MPEP 2113 states “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. C ir. 1985) (citations omitted). MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero , 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product. The limitations directed to the method for producing the claimed composition are not considered to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. It is well settled that if the examiner can find a product in the prior art that is the same or so similar as to have been obvious, the burden can be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the process for producing the composition somehow imparts a patentable distinction to the composition under examination. Claims 31-33, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Yamamoto in view of US 2019/0224747 A1 to Yamanaka et al. (hereinafter Yamanaka). Regarding claim 31 , Yamamoto discloses a method for producing a bonded magnet compound, the method comprising: providing an additive comprising a thermosetting resin and additional additives (para [0032]); kneading the additive comprising a thermosetting resin , the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27 (para [0025] and [0030]) , and a thermoplastic resin to form a bonded magnet compound (two or more, para [0032]) in which a filling ratio of the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder in the bonded magnet compound is 92 parts by weight (para [0046]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 91.5 mass% or higher . Yamamoto does not expressly recite forming a bonded magnet additive by heat curing a thermosetting resin and additional additives wherein the additives include a curing agent , wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 11 . However, Yamanaka does teach a method of forming a bonded magnet comprising forming a bonded magnet additive by heating a thermosetting resin and curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 1 0 , kneading the bonded magnet additive and a coated magnetic powder, such as SmFeN-based powder (para [0016]) and heat curing the mixture to form a bonded magnet (para [0006] and [0021]). A range of 2 to 10 closely overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2 to 11. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the curing agent of Yamanaka, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 1 0 , as an additive in the bonding agent material of Yamamoto to impart moderate mechanical strength to the cured product and compound for bonded magnets when kneading with thermop0olastic resins, in addition to improving remanence (Yamanaka, para [0014]). Regarding claim 3 2 , Yamamoto discloses a method for producing a bonded magnet compound (para [0046]), the method comprising: providing an additive comprising a thermosetting resin and additional additives (para [0032]); kneading the bonded magnet additive and a thermoplastic resin to form a bonded magnet resin composition (two or more, para [0032]); and kneading the bonded magnet resin composition, the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27 (para [0025] and [0030]), form a bonded magnet (para [0046 ]) . Yamamoto does not expressly recite forming a bonded magnet additive by heat curing a thermosetting resin and a curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 11; However, Yamanaka does teach a method of forming a bonded magnet comprising forming a bonded magnet additive by heating a thermosetting resin and curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 10, (para [0006]). A range of 2 to 10 closely overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2 to 11. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the curing agent of Yamanaka, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 10, as an additive in the bonding agent material of Yamamoto to impart moderate mechanical strength to the cured product and compound, in addition to improving remanence (Yamanaka, para [0014]). Regarding claim 33 , Yamamoto in view of Yamanake discloses the method for producing a bonded magnet compound according to claim 31 . Yamamoto further discloses wherein the thermoplastic resin is a nylon resin (para [0033]) . Regarding claim 3 5 , Yamamoto in view of Yamanake discloses the method for producing a bonded magnet compound according to claim 31. Yamamoto further discloses wherein the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder comprises Sm , Fe, and N (para [0041]) . Regarding claim 3 7 , Yamamoto discloses a method for producing a bonded magnet compound, the method comprising: providing an additive comprising a thermosetting resin and additional additives (para [0032]); kneading the additive comprising a thermosetting resin, the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27 (para [0025] and [0030]), and a thermoplastic resin to form a bonded magnet compound (two or more, para [0032]) in which a filling ratio of the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder in the bonded magnet compound is 92 parts by weight (para [0046]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 91.5 mass% or higher; and injection molding the formed bonded magnet compound (para [0047]). Yamamoto does not expressly recite forming a bonded magnet additive by heat curing a thermosetting resin and additional additives wherein the additives include a curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 11. However, Yamanaka does teach a method of forming a bonded magnet comprising forming a bonded magnet additive by heating a thermosetting resin and curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 10, kneading the bonded magnet additive and a coated magnetic powder, such as SmFeN-based powder (para [0016]) and heat curing the mixture to form a bonded magnet (para [0006] and [0021]). A range of 2 to 10 closely overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2 to 11. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the curing agent of Yamanaka, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 10, as an additive in the bonding agent material of Yamamoto to impart moderate mechanical strength to the cured product and compound for bonded magnets when kneading with thermop0olastic resins, in addition to improving remanence (Yamanaka, para [0014]). Regarding claim 3 8 , Yamamoto discloses a method for producing a bonded magnet compound (para [0046]), the method comprising: providing an additive comprising a thermosetting resin and additional additives (para [0032]); kneading the bonded magnet additive and a thermoplastic resin to form a bonded magnet resin composition (two or more, para [0032]); and kneading the bonded magnet resin composition, the phosphate-coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder according to claim 27 (para [0025] and [0030]), form a bonded magnet compound (para [0046]) ; and injection molding the formed bonded magnet compound (para [0047]). Yamamoto does not expressly recite forming a bonded magnet additive by heat curing a thermosetting resin and a curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 11; However, Yamanaka does teach a method of forming a bonded magnet comprising forming a bonded magnet additive by heating a thermosetting resin and curing agent, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 10, (para [0006]). A range of 2 to 10 closely overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2 to 11. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the curing agent of Yamanaka, wherein a ratio of a number of reactive groups in the curing agent to a number of reactive groups in the thermosetting resin is in a range of 2 to 10, as an additive in the bonding agent material of Yamamoto to impart moderate mechanical strength to the cured product and compound, in addition to improving remanence (Yamanaka, para [0014]). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 20- 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 5-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,462,9 5 8 B2 (hereinafter 9 5 8) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach closely overlapping methods of making phosphate coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder s. Claims 31-35, 37, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 -7 and 9 -17 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 230,438 B2 (hereinafter 438 ) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach closely overlapping methods of making bonded magnets comprising phosphate coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powders. Claim s 20-30, 36, and 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 15- 24 and 27- 32 of copending Application No. 18/253,676 ( hereinafter 676 ). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach overlapping bonded magnets (instant claims 36 and 39 and 676 claims 30-32) comprising overlapping phosphate coated SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powders with overlapping properties (instant claims 27-30 and 676 claims 27-29) made by overlapping methods (instant claims 20-26 and 676 claims 15-2 4 ) . Claim 36 is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113, cited above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2678 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1177 . 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. /L.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /Matthew E. Hoban/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734