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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 31 July 2026, claim 1 is amended and claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 31 July 2026, new grounds of rejection are presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20010020495 A1 (document cited by applicant; hereinafter “Mei”).
Regarding claim 1, Mei teaches a permanent magnet (see title). Mei teaches that the magnet includes a general composition of [R1-a(M1)a][T1-b-c(M2)b(M3)c]dxα (see BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION or claim 6). phases (see [0031]). Mei teaches that the magnet includes the ThMn12 phase as a crystal phase Mei teaches that the permanent magnet includes a main phase, meaning the phase which is present the most among crystalline phases and amorphous along with another nonmagnetic phase that increases coercivity (see [0031]-[0036]).
Mei teaches examples of the magnet at [0079]-[0111]. More specifically Mei teaches Examples 2-5 which are prepared by a powder metallurgy approach after pulverizing ingot (See [0082]-[0090]). Of these examples, Mei teaches Example 3 which is represented by a formula of (Sm0.85Zr0.15)(Fe0.9Co0.1)0.91Cu0.06Ga0.03)8.93Si1.65B0.2 (see [0084]). Although Mei expresses the formula in terms of atomic ratios instead of atomic percents, the composition of Example 3 falls in the claimed rages, anticipating the entire ranges. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03.
The corresponding value of a for Example 3 would be 1 / (1+8.93+1.62+0.2) = approximately 8.4 atomic %. It is noted that the value of 8.4 is outside the claimed range of 5-8 for the a value. The corresponding value of c would be 0.2 / (1+8.93+1.62+0.2) = approximately 1.60 atomic%. The corresponding value of b would be 100 – (a + c), by the definition given in the claim. The corresponding value of x is approximately 0.15 (from Zr0.15). The corresponding value of y would be represented wherein M includes amounts of Si and Cu, and so would be approximately ((8.93 + 1.65) – (0.91 * 8.93) ) / (8.93 + 1.65) = approx. 0.23. It is noted here that the inclusion of Ga at 0.03 (atomic fraction) of the Co + Ni + Cu containing fraction is not considered to distinguish from the composition of claim 1 that is represented by Formula 1. It is believed that this is approximately 2.2 atomic percent of the total. In other words, the Example 3 of Mei, including about 2.2 atomic percent of Ga is fairly said to be “represented by” Formula 1 as would be understood by a skilled artisan, even though the a value be 8.4 instead of 5 to 8.
The non-stoichiometric ratio of 8.4 over 8 (5% difference in R and Z elements from the claim) would have been expected to have had similar properties and effects, being a permanent magnet. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. In the alternative, Mei teaches that the value of d may be 6-11 (see [0017]). It would have been an obvious matter to a skilled artisan to have altered the composition of Example 3 as increasing the value of d (thus adding more of the other alloying elements, and thereby decreasing the amounts of Sm and Zr), where Mei teaches that a suitable range is 6-11 for d. The adjustment of the composition would have required no more than a routine investigation of the invention of Mei.
Also in the alternative, the addition of the minor amount of Gallium element in the Example 3 of Mei is considered an obvious difference to the claimed composition. The composition includes all of the required elements at the required proportions and the same use and the same coercivity value (see Table 2). The addition of a minor amount of gallium would not alter the function or the basic properties of the permanent magnet. Further Mei teaches that the addition of element Ga serves as an alternative to the B that is added to the magnet see [0024]-[0030] and [0052]). Therefore the elimination of the Ga element from Example 3 would have required no more than a routine investigation of the examples of Mei based on the teachings that it is similar to B in the magnet.
Regarding claim 2, Mei teaches that the magnet includes the ThMn12 phase as a crystal phase Mei teaches that the permanent magnet includes a main phase, meaning the phase which is present the most among crystalline phases and amorphous along with another nonmagnetic phase that increases coercivity (see [0031]-[0036]). Mei measures the magnet using XRD technique, and finds that the Example magnet includes the ThMn12 crystal phase along with other lesser phases (see [0089]-[0090] and Table 2). Mei teaches heat treating the magnetic material, followed by a cooling that may be a rapid cooling (see Mei at [0056]). This is believed to be analogous to the heat treatment described by applicant as achieving the claimed features.
Though Mei does not teach that the amorphous phase in this example, it is well known in the art that the amorphous material will not be measured in the XRD, and Mei elsewhere mentions the main phase, meaning the phase which is present the most among crystalline phases and amorphous phase (see [0031]-[0036]). The features not disclosed by the prior art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Alternatively the composition excluding the Ga would have been substantially the same and would have functioned the same. The magnet with the microstructural properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Mei teaches that the rare earth is Sm (see Examples 2-5).
Regarding claim 4, Mei teaches that the iron is at 0.9 atomic ratio (90 at%) and cobalt is 0.1 (see Example 3), falling in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Mei teaches a coercive force of 11.2 kOe (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Mei does not teach a Curie temperature of the permanent magnet. Mei teaches the same composition, used for the same purposes, and including the same coercivity (as cited above). The features not disclosed by the prior art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Mei does not describe the atomic ratio or the amount of a B element in a grain boundary relative to that in a grain. The features not disclosed by the prior art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Mei does not teach a ratio of a peak intensity of the 110 iron peak to that of a 321 ThMn12 peak. Mei is completely silent as to what is the value of the ratio of these peak intensities. The features not disclosed by the prior art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Mei teaches that the magnets are used for various devices (see [0003]), thus envisioning a “device”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 31 July 2026, with respect to Mei have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that the a value of Mei in example 3 would have been 8.6% and that all of the examples would have exceeded 8 at%. This argument is considered but is moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Specifically it is not clear that the alloy of claim 1 would have been patentably distinct from Mei, based on the considerations of the composition claimed. Even if there is a difference, it is not clear that this is outside the realm of being represented by the formula and furthermore it is not clear that the properties of the magnet would have been distinct. Further still, Mei teaches a wide range of alloying elements and the adjustment of the examples through suitable investigation would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan. For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the features of dependent claims 2 and 8 would not necessarily have been present in the examples of Mei. In this case, Mei teaches heat treating the magnetic material, followed by a cooling that may be a rapid cooling (see Mei at [0056]). This is believed to be analogous to the heat treatment described by applicant as achieving the claimed features.
When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, evidence of obviousness outweighs evidence against obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights