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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product
A product and a process of use of said product
A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product
A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process
A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-10, drawn to a method.
Group II, claims 11 and 12, drawn to a magnet.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the following:
A Nd-Fe-B multilayer sintered magnet, which is a laminate of a plurality of layers of Nd-Fe-B thin plate-shaped sintered magnets in which c-axis direction of a Nd2Fe14B tetragonal compound is oriented in the main surface of the Nd-Fe-B thin plate-shaped sintered magnet, and which have a high orientation degree of 90% or more and a thickness of 3 mm, or less are laminated.
This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Taihaku et al (US 2017/0178806 A1). Taihaku et al teaches a permanent magnet formed into a green sheet by applying a magnetic field and laminating and fixing a plurality of the magnetically orientated green sheets and sintering [0016]. The permanent magnet is Nd-Fe-B [0056]. The green sheet has a thickness of 0.05-10 mm [0058]. The green sheet orientation is in an in-plane direction (c-axis) [0059] with a crystal structure of Nd2Fe14B [0103]. A high degree of orientation is obtained [0022].
During a telephone conversation with Rachel Watt on 02/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/23/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are as originally filed and Claims 3-6, 9, and 10 are currently amended.
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 1-10 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.
The term “high electrical resistance layer” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “Nd-Fe-B thin plate-shaped sintered magnet” in line 4. However, it is not clear what shape “plate-shaped” represents and how it limits and defines the claimed invention. A “plate-shape” can represent a plethora of shapes, from a flat surface to a dish-shaped cavity of any size.
The term “thin plate-shaped sintered magnet” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the c-axis direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is not clear what is considered a “main surface” of the magnet, since the shape of the magnet and other parameters of the magnet are not defined as stated above.
Claim 1 recites “a main surface of a cavity” in lines 10 and 11. It is not clear what is considered a “main surface” of the cavity since the shape and other parameters of the cavity are not defined.
Claim 2 recites “the surface layer containing a large amount of Nd” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “large amount of Nd generated” in Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the sintering on the surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites two methods of producing the “Nd-Fe-B thin plate-shaped sintered magnet. The table below is a comparison of Claim 1 and Claim 10, method a):
Claim 1 (lines 7-11)
Claim 10 (lines 4-8)
supplying and filling an alloy powder into a mold having a structure partitioned by a plurality of partition plates arranged at a predetermined interval,
is supplied and filled into a mold partitioned by a plurality of partition plates arranged at a predetermined interval,
applying a magnetic field in a direction parallel to a main surface of a cavity partitioned by the partition plates to orient the alloy powder,
then orientation in a magnetic field is performed in the direction parallel to a main surface of a cavity partitioned by the partition plates,
and then performing sintering
and then the alloy powder is conveyed to a sintering furnace while still filled in the mold
The table below is a comparison of Claim 1 and Claim 10, method b):
Claim 1 (lines 7-11)
Claim 10 (lines 9-15)
supplying and filling an alloy powder into a mold having a structure partitioned by a plurality of partition plates arranged at a predetermined interval,
is supplied and filled into a mold having a side wall divided into two or more sections and having a structure partitioned by a plurality of partition plates arranged at a predetermined interval to produce a filled body,
applying a magnetic field in a direction parallel to a main surface of a cavity partitioned by the partition plates to orient the alloy powder,
then a magnetic field is applied in the direction inside the main surface of the filled body to orient the powder in the filled body to produce an orientated-filled body,
then the side wall of the mold is separated from the orientated-filled body to take out the orientated-filled body form the mold,
and then performing sintering
and the orientated-filled body [is] taken out is sintered
The limitations in Claim 10 that are in bold face are different from what is recited in Claim 1. It is not clear how Claim 10 provides any further limitations to Claim 1 other than what is in boldface or if step a) or step b) should be repeated after the steps recited in Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the main surface of the filled body" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The table below is a comparison of Claim 1 and Claim 10, method b):
Claim 1 (lines 7-11)
Claim 10 (lines 9-15)
applying a magnetic field in a direction parallel to a main surface of a cavity partitioned by the partition plates to orient the alloy powder,
then a magnetic field is applied in the direction inside the main surface of the filled body to orient the powder in the filled body to produce an orientated-filled body,
However, the limitation of “the magnetic field is applied in the direction inside the main surface of the filled body” does not further limit that which is recited in Claim 1, since “inside the main surface” (Claim 10) does not further limit “a direction parallel to the main surface” (Claim 1). Furthermore, “inside the main surface” in Claim 10 is broader in scope than what is recited in Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Sagawa et al (US 10,629,345) teaches rare earth sintered magnet sintered bodies where the magnet is Nd-Fe-B (abstract; column 12, line 11). The thickness of the sintered body is around 3 mm (TABLEs 1 and 3). The orientation is 95% or more (column 10, line 57). Sagawa et al teaches the sintered article is cut into a plurality of slices (column 7, lines 22-24), which teaches away from the claimed “without performing a cutting step.”
Taihaku et al, cited above, teaches cutting the laminated plural green sheets (abstract), which teaches away from the claimed “without performing a cutting step.”
JP 6280137 B2 (JP ‘137, based on the machine translation as listed on PTO 892) teaches manufacturing a rare earth sintered magnet such as Nd-Fe-B (page 4) in a side mold with a side wall provided with a groove for inserting partition plates to form cavities with openings of 4.6 mm (page 4). A pulsed magnetic field was applied in the direction perpendicular to the partition plate. A “laminated” block of the magnetic poled orientation-filled compact and partition plate is removed from the mold and sintered in a furnace (page 5). As an example, the “laminated” block was separated, the partition plate and magnetic pole were removed, and only the filled powder compact of the alloy powder was sintered. The shape of the filled oriented molded body does not collapse (page 6). The “laminated” block may be sintered to the bottom plate (Fig 9). However, JP ‘137 does not teach or suggest laminating a plurality of sintered compacts are as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733