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 of Group III in the reply filed on 11 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 June 2026.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 11 June 2026, claims 5-7 and 9-10 are amended and claims 11-16 are added. Claims 5-7 and 11-13 are currently under examination. Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 14-16 are withdrawn.
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) 5-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1) and 102 (a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2014/0134040 A1 A1 (hereinafter “Tabata”).
Regarding claim 5, Tabata teaches a method of making a rare earth sintered magnet (see SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Tabata teaches high coercivity values (see [0044] and Table 1), thus defining a permanent magnet. Tabata teaches that the method includes a cooling of a rare earth containing ally onto a chilled roll which generates “flakes” (see BACKGROUND ART and SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION and claim 4). The “flakes” of Tabata are the same as the “alloy slices” claimed. Tabata teaches that the goal of the invention is to control the dendrite formation and to generate a large number of dendritic crystals of aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 within each flake, as viewed from a rolling face (see SUMMARY and Fig 1-2). Tabata teaches that the R-rich phase is present with an average distance of 1 to 10 microns (SUMMARY). Tabata teaches that this is achieved by use of a mill roll with a roughness Ra of 2 to 15 microns (see [0017] and claim 4). The surface roughness value Ra required by Tabata is within the range claimed. Tabata teaches highly anisotropic grains and grain boundaries (Figs 1-2).
Tabata does not disclose wherein the cooling roll has a surface roughness Rz of 0.5 to 45 microns. Tabata does not endeavor to disclose any measurement of a cooling roll surface roughness Rz, and presents only a measurement for the Ra and Rsk surface roughness values.
However Tabata teaches that the surface roughness is a critical factor to determine the formation of or the lack of chill crystals in the alloy material (see [0055]-[0056]). Tabata teaches that the roughness of the roll is controlled as by applying sandpaper to the roll (see [0056]). Tabata teaches liquid phase sintering ([0031]). The high number of dendritic crystals or 0.5-1.0 aspect ratio (when viewed on a roll cooled face), the high anisotropy of the grain structure (See figs 1 and 2), and a short distance of R-rich phases, is analogous to the goal of applicant of forming anisotropic grain boundary structure in the alloy and allowing for diffusion of heavy R elements into the magnet thereby. The same principle of roughening the rolls with sandpapers to yield a Ra value of 2-15 microns (falling entirely in the claimed range), and thus controlling the structure of the chilled alloy flakes (slices) would have resulted in the same Rz value in the rolls inherently. The same means is used to roughen the rolls, to the same Ra value as claimed, for the same purpose of strip casting onto the roll, to generate the same rare earth magnet material claimed, with similar anisotropic structure, and this would have resulted also in the same Rz value claimed. It is not clear what steps or features applicant has provided in the roughening of the rolls or other steps that would have differed from the strip casting of Tabata. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
In the alternative, Tabata teaches that the surface roughness is a critical factor to determine the formation of or the lack of chill crystals in the alloy material (see [0055]-[0056]). Thus the roughness of the roll is determined as a results-effective variable with regard to the dendritic crystal structure in the alloy, and the skilled artisan would have optimized the roughness Rz when controlling roughness Ra and Rsk clearly described by Tabata. MPEP 2144.05.
Tabata teaches that the resulting flakes are then pulverized ([0043]-[0044]), molded in field, and sintered (See SUMMARY and Example 1). Tabata does not describe a value of formula 1 as claimed. Tabata does not disclose any measurements of the A, a1/a2, b1/b2, or c1/c2 values at all. However the same material, processed in the same way as claimed, for the same purpose as claimed, would have had the claimed properties inherently. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
In the alternative, the prior art teaches a process that includes the same rare earth magnetic materials, processed in a way that generates a high coercivity and Remanence in the magnet, which includes roughening the chill roll, casting flakes which include a highly anisotropic structure, pressing in field, and sintering. The process of the prior art generates useful magnetic properties, and it is not clear that the difference in the shrinkage rates relative to each dimension (if there are any differences) would have materially affected the processing or properties of the magnet. The process of Tabata, whatever the values of formula 1 would have been, are considered close enough to what is claimed that the skilled artisan would have expected similar properties based on similar materials, microstructures, and excellent coercivity and remanence. MPEP 2144.05. It is not clear that the differences in relative shrinkage values (if any) would have materially affected the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Tabata teaches sanding (see [0056], EXAMPLE 1 thru EXAMPLE 3).
Regarding claim 11, Tabata does not describe a value of formula 1 as claimed. Tabata does not disclose any measurements of the A, a1/a2, b1/b2, or c1/c2 values at all. However the same material, processed in the same way as claimed, for the same purpose as claimed, would have had the claimed properties inherently. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
In the alternative, the prior art teaches a process that includes the same rare earth magnetic materials, processed in a way that generates a high coercivity and Remanence in the magnet, which includes roughening the chill roll, casting flakes which include a highly anisotropic structure, pressing in field, and sintering. The process of the prior art generates useful magnetic properties, and it is not clear that the difference in the shrinkage rates relative to each dimension (if there are any differences) would have materially affected the processing or properties of the magnet. The process of Tabata, whatever the values of formula 1 would have been, are considered close enough to what is claimed that the skilled artisan would have expected similar properties based on similar materials, microstructures, and excellent coercivity and remanence. MPEP 2144.05. It is not clear that the differences in relative shrinkage values (if any) would have materially affected the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Tabata teaches that oxygen is an impurity (See [0034]) thus reading on less than 1500 ppm inherently. In the alternative the purification of the product, as by exclusion of oxygen, would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan based on these teachings that oxygen is undesirable. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.04 VII.
Regarding claim 13, Tabata teaches that the surface roughness Ra is 3.01 microns in EXAMPLE 1. The same means is used to roughen the rolls, to the same Ra value as claimed, for the same purpose of strip casting onto the roll, to generate the same rare earth magnet material claimed, with similar anisotropic structure, and this would have resulted also in the same Rz value claimed. It is not clear what steps or features applicant has provided in the roughening of the rolls or other steps that would have differed from the strip casting of Tabata. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
In the alternative, Tabata teaches that the surface roughness is a critical factor to determine the formation of or the lack of chill crystals in the alloy material (see [0055]-[0056]). Thus the roughness of the roll is determined as a results-effective variable with regard to the dendritic crystal structure in the alloy, and the skilled artisan would have optimized the roughness Rz when controlling roughness Ra and Rsk clearly described by Tabata. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2005/0028892 A1 (HEREINAFTER “Sasaki”).
Regarding claim 7, Tabata teaches that the resulting flakes are then pulverized ([0043]-[0044]), molded in field, and sintered (See SUMMARY and Example 1). Tabata does not describe a field strength, mixing of the powders with agents, or isostatic pressing. Tabata is generally silent about the details of the molding.
Sasaki teaches a method of making a alloy flake for rare earth magnet (title). Sasaki teaches hydrogen pulverization ([0143]). Sasaki teaches a roll quenched powder flake (See Fig 5 and DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION). Sasaki teaches that the powder is mixed with lubricant, and isostatically pressed (See [0144]-[0148]). Sasaki teaches that an antioxidant atmosphere is maintained (See [0143]-[0144]) reading on mixing with antioxidant. Sasaki teaches that the sintering furnace is evacuated to 1.33 x 10-2 hPa or less ([0148]). Sasaki teaches that a field strength may be 1.5 T ([0243], [0322]).
Sasaki taches that adding lubricant reduces friction (see [0146]), and that the isostatic pressing lowers the variation in orientation of the magnetization during the processing (see [0147]).
It would have been an obvious matte to the skilled artisan to have practiced the method of Tabata, and to have altered the method as by using the pressing and molding of Sasaki, because Sasaki teaches that adding lubricant reduces friction (see [0146]), and that the isostatic pressing lowers the variation in orientation of the magnetization during the processing (see [0147]). The substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results in the art would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20070199624 A1 teaches to control a surface roughness Rz of a cooling roll in order to generate a highly dendritic structure and to control a shrinkage rate.
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