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 .
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 sets forth that the ‘RTB magnet comprises […] one or more selected from the group consisting of Al, Cu, Ga, and Zr’. The claim goes on to set forth that the ‘amount of Al is within a range of 0.03 mass% or more and 0.90 mass% or less’, while all other members of the above Markush group (Cu, Ga, Zr) may have a range extending to 0 mass% (optional). Thus it is unclear whether the claim requires this content of Al only when Al is selected from the Markush group, or whether Al must be present and the other components are optionally included with Al. Either interpretation causes inconsistencies in the claim, as the selection of a non-Al element as the only element from the Markush group does not meet the limitation in terms of the amount of Al and the second interpretation requires the selection of Al and one or more of the other materials (‘requires two or more selected from the group consisting of’).
For the sake of examination, the claims are interpreted as being drawn to a composition as set forth in terms of mass percentages wherein Al is positively included and additional elements such as Cu, Ga and Zr may be added. Claims 2-5 are dependent upon claim 1 and are rejected on the same basis Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 1 sets forth “an amount of Ce to R is within a range of 15 mass% or more and 25 mass% or less”. It is unclear whether this recitation is drawn to the amount of Ce in the sintered body as a whole or whether this is an amount of Cerium relative to the amount of total rare earth elements (R). The limitation is worded as a ratio (X to Y); however, the range as set forth (15 mass% to 25 mass%) is not consistent with this limitation being drawn to a ratio (a ratio is generally unitless as the two values being compared have the same units). While this appears to be the intended meaning based on the specification, this meaning is not accurately represented in the claims. For the sake of examination the ratio of cerium to total rare earth content is considered to be from 0.15 to 0.25 (Cerium/TREE). It is noted that this language is also used in instant claim 3. Claims 2-5 are rejected on the same basis as they are dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in JP2018174323 (citations to attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1: Furuta teaches an RTB permanent magnet (Page 1, final paragraph). The permanent magnet may be in the form of a sintered body (See Page 2, Paragraph beginning ‘The whole permanent magnet’). Furuta teaches that the magnet may comprise R (rare earth elements), T (Fe and Co), B (boron), and Al (See last 3 paragraphs of Page 3 and 4th paragraph of Page 4). Furuta teaches that the permanent magnet may contain 11-18 at% R, 71.5-84.3 Fe, 0-5% Co, 4.32-5.93% B, and 0-0.4% of element X, which may be Al (See section bridging pages 3 and 4). Furuta thus teaches an RTB based permanent magnet comprising all of the claimed elements. Furuta teaches the content of the various elements in terms of atomic percentages and not in mass percentages as claimed; however, the ranges taught by Furuta would overlap the instantly claimed range when converted to mass percentages. This overlapping range is evidenced by at least examples 2, 5, and 18 of Furuta, which are converted to mass percentages below:
MW
mass% Ex 2
mass% Ex 5
mass% Ex 18
at% Ex 2
at% Ex5
at% Ex18
Fe
55.8
65.25
65.6
61.3
78.1
78.7
73.6
Nd
144.2
26.76
21.7
29.9
12.4
10.1
13.9
Ce
140.1
6.50
11.3
3.3
3.1
5.4
1.6
Co
58.9
0.44
0.4
4.4
0.5
0.5
5.0
B
10.8
0.91
0.8
0.9
5.6
5.0
5.6
Al
27.0
0.08
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Cu
63.5
0.07
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
TOTAL R
33.26
33.02
33.24
Ce/R
0.1954
0.342
0.101
These examples provide evidence that the range of compositions taught by Furuta includes a range of R from at least 33.02-33.26 mass%, Co from at least 0.4-4.4 mass%, B from at least 0.8-0.91 mass%, Al from 0.08-0.1 mass%, Cu from at least 0.07-0.1 mass%, Zr and Ga at 0 mass%, and a substantial balance of Fe. The examples of Furuta show discrete examples having a ratio of Ce to R of 0.2 (20 mass%), falling within the claimed range. Furuta thus clearly teaches an overlapping range of compositions. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2: Furuta teaches that the RTB based sintered magnet comprises a main phase of R2T14B (See last paragraph of Page 2). Furuta also teaches that the magnet comprises a grain boundary, wherein the grain boundary includes an R-T phase (See first paragraph of Page 3).
Regarding Claim 3: Furuta teaches an RTB based permanent magnet that is provided in the form of a sintered magnet. The magnet of Furuta is made from an overlapping composition having an overlapping amount of R and Ce. Furuta teaches the presence of an RT phase within the grain boundary (See first paragraph of Page 3), but is silent in terms of the ratio of Ce to R in the RT phase being larger than in the main phase. However, Furuta teaches an overlapping composition that is processed in a similar manner of providing raw material powders, pressing the powders, sintering the powders, and then aging the magnet (See Paragraph 55-60 of Original Disclosure and Page 4 of Furuta). The processing conditions taught by Furuta overlap those instantly disclosed. Furuta thus teaches an overlapping range of materials that are processed in an overlapping method. Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the material of Furuta to necessarily have the same properties as the instantly claimed product in terms of the ratio of Ce to R in the RT phase being larger than in the main phase. Materials of the same composition and processed in the same manner must necessarily have the same properties.
Regarding Claim 4: Furuta does not necessitate the inclusion of heavy rare earth elements. The content of heavy rare earths may be 0 mass%.
Regarding Claim 5: Furuta’s examples 2, 5 and 18 establish an overlapping range of Co content as is shown in the Table above. Furuta teaches that the range of Co may be from 0.4-4.4 mass%, overlapping the claimed range. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The copending applications associated with 20240038420 and 20240105368 are noted. The claims of the copending applications do not appear to obviate the claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734