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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9-10 and 14-17 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claims 1, 9-10, 17 are amended. Claims 2-8 and 11-13 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/26/2023 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 9-10 and 14-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Instant claim 1 required “the next step” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is further unclear whether the next step is tempering or something else.
As a result of rejected claim 1, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
Claim Interpretations
Instant claim 1 “for improving bending strength of a rare earth permanent magnet material, wherein the rare earth permanent magnetic material is a Sm2Co17 series rare earth permanent magnetic material alloy” is intended use of claimed method according to MPEP 2111.02 I.
Because the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than a claim limitation, no patentable weight would be given. See MPEP 2111.02 II.
Second, there is nothing in the body of the claim 1, gives life and meaning to the preamble’s statement of purpose. In the instant case, the body of the claim merely encompasses the second and third wherein clause. The only place in the body of the claim 1 reciting “the rare earth permanent magnetic material” is “the two or more cryogenic treatment can improve the bending strength of the rare earth permanent magnetic material”. However, given the meaning of “can” is “be able to” or “is permitted to, the term “can” typically conveys that the invention may perform a function or be used in a certain way, but it does not necessarily require that it always does so. This is different from “must” or “shall,” which are mandatory.
Third, Examiner takes the position that “can improve the bending strength” is a resulting effect of claimed preparation process.
For the above reason, recitations “for improving bending strength of a rare earth permanent magnet material, wherein the rare earth permanent magnetic material is a Sm2Co17 series rare earth permanent magnetic material alloy” and “the two or more cryogenic treatment can improve the bending strength of the rare earth permanent magnetic material”. are not given patentable distinction over prior art as long as prior discloses or suggests the second and third wherein clauses.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokoshi (JPS62165312A) in view of Sun (CN1487535A).
As for claims 1, 9-10 and 14-17, Inokoshi discloses a method for manufacturing rare earth iron-based permanent magnet ([0001]) by sequential steps of preparing raw materials, melting, pulverizing, compacting to oriented green body, sintering, quenching in liquid nitrogen (i.e. primary cryogenic treatment as required by claims 9 and 10) and aging (tempering). (English translation Page 3 last 12 lines) In addition, Inokosh explicitly discloses quenching in liquid nitrogen after both the sintering and aging treatment processes is effective. (English translation Page 5 last two lines and Table 2 last Inventive Example) Hence, Inokoshi discloses another cryogenic treatments after the aging. The another cryogenic treatment reads on claim 9 required secondary cryogenic treatment. The another cryogenic treatment also reads on claim 10 required secondary cryogenic treatment and ternary cryogenic treatment after the tempering.
Hence, Inokosh suggests all required steps in claim 1 and at least one cryogenic treatment between sintering and tempering and at least one cryogenic treatment after tempering. Instant claim 17 required rare earth permanent magnetic material is met. Instant claim 1 required directly placing a green body in liquid nitrogen for cryogenic treatment and then taking the green body out of the liquid nitrogen is also met.
With respect to recitation “after temperature of the green body taken out of the cryogenic treatment system is increased to room temperature, the next step is performed”, Inokoshi’s primary cryogenic treatment followed by aging reads on “after temperature of the green body taken out of the cryogenic treatment system is increased to room temperature, the next step is performed”. Inokoshi’s another cryogenic treatment is expected to be warmed back to room temperature before reaching to aging temperature.
Aging meets instant claim 15 required wherein the tempering treatment is aging treatment.
Inokoshi does not explicitly disclose instant claim 1 required “a cryogenic treatment temperature is lower than or equal to -130 degree C, and a cryogenic treatment time is 10-400 min”.
Sun discloses a cryogenic treatment method for nanocrystalline rare earth permanent magnets. Hence, Sun is in analogous art of Inokoshi.
Sun explicitly discloses Inventive Example 1 in which a quenched alloy is held at -190 degree C for 3 hours (i.e. 180 minutes). Hence, instant claims 1 and 14 required a cryogenic treatment temperature and time are met.
Both Sun and Inokoshi discloses a cryogenic treatment of rare earth permanent magnetic material to improve the magnetic properties.
Sun discloses instant claims 1 and 14 required cryogenic treatment temperature and time in order to adjust and refine the grains size [0022] for improved magnetic properties [0009].
Inokoshi desires to improve the magnetic properties by a cryogenic treatment for rare earth permanent.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to apply cryogenic treatment temperature and time as suggested by Sun, in the process of making rare earth permanent of Inokoshi for the benefit of improved magnetic properties.
As for claim 16, Sun expressly discloses a nitrogen treatment (i.e. claimed tempering treatment) at 520 degree C under an ammonia atmosphere ([0035]) but does not disclose the tempering time. It should be noted, however, Sun also discloses controlled the treatment time between 1 and 30 minutes and treatment temperature 650-750 degree C to prevent the crystallized amorphous grains from growing too rapidly. At lower treatment temperature, the treatment time can be longer. At higher treatment temperature, the treatment time can be shorter. ([0021])
If a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, then the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said parameter might be characterized as routine experimentation.
In the instant case, Sun suggests treatment time is adjustable depends on treatment temperature such that at lower treatment temperature, the treatment time can be longer.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to further extend the 1-30 minutes of treatment time up to claimed treatment time 1-20h, in the tempering process of Inokoshi in view of Sun for the benefit of preventing the crystallized amorphous grains from growing too rapidly. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 07/31/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant first argues material system of the present application is essentially different from that of Inokoshi and Sun. Argument is not persuasive because the rare earth permanent material of claim 1 is not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretation above.
Applicant then argues the purpose of Inokoshi’s cryogenic treatment is different from instant application with respect to “improve the bending strength of the Sm2Co17 magnet”, argument is not persuasive because “for improving the bending strength of the Sm2Co17 magnet” is intended use according to claim interpretation above.
Applicant further argues Table 2 of Inokoshi suggests performing liquid nitrogen treatment both after sintering and after tempering has worse performance with respect to crack generation rate than performing liquid nitrogen treatment only after tempering. Such argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which does not (emphasis added) require crack generation rate at all. A Screen shot of English translation of Inokoshi Page 5 last paragraph provided below further evidences that reduction in crack occurrence rate is still effective even when the material is rapidly cooled with liquid nitrogen treatment both after sintering and after tempering. That is, applicant’s statement that “performing liquid nitrogen treatment both after sintering and after tempering has worse performance that performing liquid nitrogen treatment only after tempering” is mere allegation without any evidence support.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues present invention demonstrates unexpected result by performing cryogenic treatment both after sintering and after aging, argument is not persuasive because first, Inokoshi already discloses cryogenic treatment both after sintering and after aging as amended by claim 1. Second, evidences in Examples 1, 3 and 7 are not convincing at all because the magnetic properties of Example 1 being only slightly higher than Examples 3 and 7 are insufficient to demonstrate unexpected results. No evidence in instant applicant demonstrates Examples 3 and 7 result inferior magnetic properties as compared to Example 1 as a result of cryogenic treatment. With respect to mechanical property bending strength, Example 1 has 157 MPa which is only 2.5% higher than Example 3 which has 153 MPa, and 8.9% higher than Example 7 which has 143 MPa. Such small % difference is insufficient to demonstrate the criticality of cryogenic treatment both after sintering and after ageing on the mechanical bending strength. Instant applicant discloses Examples 1, 3 and 7 are all Inventive Examples. No evidence suggests Examples 3 and 7 are comparative examples as compared to Example 1 in the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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 Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights