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
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 10 March 2026, claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-9 and 11 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 10 March 2026, the rejections over Mochizuki are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20010020495 A1 (document cited by applicant; hereinafter “Mei”), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 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 %. 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 all of the prescribed elements in the prescribed portions, and also 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.
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). 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 been inherently present in the prior art permanent magnet. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01.
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 5, The corresponding value of a for Example 3 would be 1 / (1+8.93+1.62+0.2) = approximately 8.4 atomic %.
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 been inherently present in the prior art permanent magnet. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01.
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 been inherently present in the prior art permanent magnet. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01.
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 been inherently present in the prior art permanent magnet. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01.
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 10 March 2026, with respect to Mochizuki have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Mochizuki are withdrawn. Specifically, Mochizuki teaches that the B is present at greater than 4 at%, which is now outside of the range of Formula 1 in claim 1 as amended. Therefore it is not believed that the example magnets of Mochizuki have compositions which are represented by the formula 1.
New grounds of rejection are presented over Mei.
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 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