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, 7, 9-10, 14-17 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claims 1, 9-10 are amended. Claims 2-6, 8, 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, 7, 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 “step of cryogenic treatment” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 appears to have two distinct, separate cryogenic treatments. Hence, it is further unclear as to whether “step of cryogenic treatment” refers to the at least one time of cryogenic treatment between sintering and tempering or the at least one time of cryogenic treatment after tempering treatment. Claim 1 also recites “the temperature” in line 9 which has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 also appears to have two distinct, separate cryogenic treatment temperature, with one in lines 9-10 and another in line 11. It is unclear whether these two cryogenic treatment temperatures are the same cryogenic treatment temperature.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the primary cryogenic treatment” in line 3 and “the secondary cryogenic treatment” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for both limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "primary cryogenic treatment” in line 3 and “secondary cryogenic treatment” and “ternary cryogenic treatment” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for all three limitations in the claim. It is further unclear whether primary cryogenic treatment refers to “at least one time of cryogenic treatment” between sintering and tempering as recited in claim 1 or something else. It is further unclear whether secondary cryogenic treatment or “ternary cryogenic treatment” refers to “at least one time of cryogenic treatment” after tempering as recited in claim 1 or something else. It is even further unclear whether consecutive primary and secondary cryogenic treatment between sintering and tempering is the same cryogenic treatment or not. It is even further unclear whether consecutive secondary and ternary cryogenic treatment after tempering is the same cryogenic treatment or not. Since there is no intermediate step recited between consecutive primary and secondary cryogenic treatment and no intermediate step recited between consecutive secondary and ternary cryogenic treatment, they are interpreted as the same cryogenic treatment.
As a result of rejected claim 1, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
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, 7, 9-10, 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, 7, 9-10, 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 (cryogenic treatment) 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 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 claims 9-10 required wherein clause are also met according to claim interpretation above. 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.
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. The rare earth permanent magnet is R2Fe14B (Abstract line 2) as required by instant claim 7.
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 02/12/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant first argues that Inokoshi clearly states that cryogenic treatment is performed only after sintering or after aging, argument is completely unpersuasive because Inokoshi clearly states that cryogenic treatment after both (emphasis added) the sintering and aging treatment process is effective with Table 2 last Inventive Example. Hence, Inokoshi is doing exactly what instant application does, a cryogenic treatment both after sintering and after aging.
Applicant then argues the purpose of Inokoshi’s cryogenic treatment is different from instant application with respect to mechanical properties or magnetic properties, argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which neither requires improvement of the magnetic properties nor improvement of the mechanical properties.
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.
Applicant further argues Sun does not disclose pulverizing, green compacting and hence it is not a powder metallurgy process, it should be noted applicant cannot argue references (plural) individually while rejection is based on combination of Inokoshi and Sun. Primary Inokoshi already discloses pulverizing, green compacting and hence it is a powder metallurgy process.
Applicant also argues Sun’s cryogenic treatment is to refine grain size and improve magnetic properties while instant application is to improve mechanical properties of the magnet, argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which does not require or exclude the improvement of magnetic or mechanical properties at all.
Applicant lastly argues that there is not technical inspiration to combine Inokoshi and Sun, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the instant case, both Sun and Inokoshi disclose use of a cryogenic treatment on rare earth permanent magnetic material to improve the magnetic properties of the magnetic material. Hence, Sun and Inokoshi are analogous art and are combinable.
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 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