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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are amended. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are examined herein.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura (US 2008/0286595).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Yoshimura teaches a neodymium-iron-boron magnet, wherein the neodymium-iron-boron magnet is subjected to grain boundary diffusion of a heavy rare earth element such as Dy element (Abstract; [0070] to [0106]). Yoshimura discloses that the entire surfaces of the magnet are diffused with Dy ([0102]), which meets the limitation that the heavy-rare-earth grain boundary diffusion region is located at each surface of the neodymium-iron-boron magnet.
Yoshimura further discloses that the neodymium-iron-boron magnet comprises a Dy grain boundary diffusion region at a surface layer and the magnet has higher Dy concentration at the surface and the Dy concentration decreases towards the center of the magnet (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).
Yoshimura discloses that the sintered magnet has a thickness of 10 mm or less ([0101]), which includes an embodiment that the magnet has a size of 10 mm x 10mm x 10 mm ([0215]). Yoshimura discloses that the Dy diffusion depth at 900 ºC for 240 minutes is 1.2 mm for easy diffusion direction and the diffusion depth is 0.6 mm in the other two directions ([0195]). Thus, for a magnet having a size of 10 mm x10mm x10 mm, there is a portion of 8.8 mm long, 8.8 mm wide and 7.6 mm thick region that is a non-diffusion region wherein the Dy concentration is not changed by Dy diffusion as recited in claims 1 and 4. The non-diffusion region has a volume of 8.8 mm x 8.8 mm x 7.6 mm = 588.544 mm3. The volume fraction of the non-diffusion region is 588.544 /(10x10x10) = 58.85 vol.%, which meets the limitation recited in claim 1.
The diffusion depth along the thickness direction is 1.2 mm and the distance from the surface to the magnet center along the thickness direction is 10 mm/2= 5 mm. 1.2/5=24%, which meets the limitation that diffusion depth from an outer surface is 80% or less of a distance from the outer surface to the center of the neodymium iron boron magnet as recited in claim 4. Yoshimura discloses that the coercivity is increased by 1520-975 kA/m=545 kA/m (i.e. 6.85 kOe) by Dy diffusion heat treatment (Fig. 27 (b), Sample A), which meets the coercivity limitation recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimura discloses that before diffusion heat treatment that the magnet does not contain heavy rare earth (Examples 1-14) and after diffusion heat treatment, the magnet contains 0.05-1.5 wt.% heavy rare earth relative to the weight of the overall magnet ([0096]), which overlaps the amount of heavy rare earth elements recited in claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 3 is obvious over Yoshimura.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimura discloses that in a depth direction of the magnet, the concentration of Dy decreases (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).
Yoshimura discloses that the entire surfaces of the magnet are diffused with Dy ([0102]). Since the edge portion of the magnet receives Dy diffusion from two surfaces while a central portion of the outer surfaces receives Dy diffusion from only one surface, one of the ordinary skills in the art would expect that the magnet disclosed by Yoshimura meets the limitation that the Dy concentration is the highest at the edge portion and Dy decreases gradually from the edge portion towards the central portion and then remains constant at the central portion as recited in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 06/11/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights