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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Claims 2 and 15) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 3 is withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9-10 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “selected from a group consisting of” in line 7-8, which should be “selected from the group consisting of”. See MPEP 2117 for Markush Claims.
Claims 7, 9-10 and 12-13 recite “selected from a group consisting of” in line 2-3, which should be “selected from the group consisting of”. See MPEP 2117 for Markush Claims.
Claim 9 recites “is manufactured a method” in line 2, which should be “is manufactured by a method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5-6, 9, 12 and 15-16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation particles of an RTB alloy, and the claim also recites particles of an RTB alloy and preferably particles of a rare-earth-rich phase which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “rich” in claim 2 (line 4) and claim 15 (line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the first binder and the second binder are at least partially removed from the first raw form and/or the second raw form” in the last 3 lines, which covers a scope that both the first binder and the second binder are at least partially removed from the first raw form and the second raw form. This limitation causes confusion whether the first binder exists only in the first raw form and the second binder exists only in the second raw form, or the first binder and the second binder exist in both the first and the second raw form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "the first binder" and “the second binder” in line 2-3. Since claim 1 does not recite a binder material, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “in particular gluing” in line 3. The meaning of “in particular gluing” is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “loose” in claim 9 (line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loose” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "the separating layer” in line 2. Since claim 1 does not recite a separating layer, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “a particle orientation” in line 5. The meaning of “particle orientation” is not clear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how a particle orientation is defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "the particles of a rare-earth-rich phase” in line 2. Since claim 1 does not recite a particle of a rare-earth-rich phase, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a material including particles of an RTB alloy, the particles of a rare-earth-rich phase” in line 2-3. It’s unclear whether the material includes either particles of an RTB alloy or particles of a rare-earth-rich phase, or the material includes both particles of an RTB alloy and particles of a rare-earth-rich phase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 depends from claim 8 and recites the limitation "the second mixture” in line 2. Since claim 8 does not recite a second mixture, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2010/0045411).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Kobayashi teaches ([0071] to [0081]) a method for manufacturing a magnet comprising: making a first powder compact from a first magnet alloy powder under an aligning magnetic field; making a second powder compact from a second magnet alloy powder under an aligning magnetic field; stacking the two compacts one upon the other with load applied to them to form a composite compact; and sintering the composite compact to make a magnet, which meets the limitations recited in claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Kobayashi discloses that both the first and second powder compact contain particles of R-T-B alloys ([0076]; [0077]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 2 and 15.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses that the powder compact is formed with a press machine under dry condition ([0076] to [0081]), which meets the dry pressing limitation recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses stacking the two compacts one upon the other with load applied to them to form a composite compact; and sintering the composite compact to make a magnet ([0073]), which meets the substance-to-substance bonding limitation and loose bonding limitation recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses sintering the composite compact in vacuum ([0080]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 13.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozeki (US 2011/0012460, IDS dated 08/07/2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Ozeki teaches ([0079] to [0132]) a method for manufacturing a magnet comprising: making a first magnet green sheet from a magnet alloy and aligning the magnet particles under an aligning magnetic field; making a second magnet green sheet from the magnet alloy and aligning the magnet particles under an aligning magnetic field; stacking the green sheets to form a shaped body; and sintering the shaped body to make a magnet. Since claim 1 encompass a scope that the first and the second magnetic material have the same composition, claims 1 and 4 are anticipated by Ozaki.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ozeki discloses that the green sheet contains particles of R-T-B alloys Dy ([0101] to [0127]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 2 and 15.
Regarding claim 6, Ozeki discloses that the binder used for each green sheet is the same ([0107]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Ozeki discloses alternatively stacking green sheet of magnet and green sheet of a ceramic material and sintering the composite compact to make a magnet ([0114]), which meets the substance-to-substance bonding limitation and loose bonding limitation recited in claim 9 and a separating layer is arranged between the first green sheet and the second green sheet as recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Ozeki discloses sintering the composite compact in Ar or in vacuum ([0114]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 13.
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 5-6, 8, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2010/0045411), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakade (US 2015/0171717).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kobayashi discloses making a first powder compact from a first magnet alloy powder under an aligning magnetic field and making a second powder compact from a second magnet alloy powder under an aligning magnetic field ([0071] to [0081]).
Kobayashi does not disclose that the first powder compact is made from a mixture of a first magnet alloy powder and a first binder and the second powder compact is made from a mixture of a second magnet alloy powder and a second binder. Wakade teaches a method of making a magnet and discloses that mixing magnet powder with a binder and making a compact by injection molding the mixture allows to make a magnet having any desirable shape ([0007]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first powder compact and the second powder compact by mixing magnet powder with a binder to form a mixture and injection molding the mixture as taught by Wakade in the process of Kobayashi in order to make a magnet having desirable shape as disclosed by Wakade. Wakade further discloses the binder is removed before sintering ([0015]). Wakade discloses that the binder is partly removed by thermal removal ([0015]). Performing thermal binder removal in the process of heating the magnet compact to a sintering temperature is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art performing thermal binder removal to the composite compact in the process of heat the composite compact to a sintering temperature in the process of Kobayashi in view of Wakade in order to efficiently make a permanent magnet.
Since Kobayashi discloses that both the first magnet alloy and the second magnet alloy are R-T-B alloy, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that identical binder can be used to make the first powder compact and the second powder compact as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Kobayashi discloses that the first magnetic powder is compacted under an aligning magnetic field, then the second magnetic powder is loaded onto the first powder compact and compacted under an aligning magnetic field so that a composite compact comprising of a first compact portion and a second compact portion is obtained ([0072]; [0080]). Wakade discloses that the powder compact is made by injection molding ([0015]). Thus, claims 8 and 16 are obvious over Kobayashi in view of Wakade.
Regarding claim 10, Wakade disclosed that the binder is a thermoplastic binder ([0015]). Polyamide is a well-known thermoplastic binder for making a permanent rare earth magnet. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that using polyamide as a thermoplastic binder in the process of Kobayashi in view of Wakade would be able to make a rare earth magnet with success.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki (US 2011/0012460), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozaki-922 (US 2017/0169922).
Regarding claim 5, Ozeki discloses that each green sheet is made by mixing an R-T-B magnet powder and a binder to form a mixture and molding the mixture into a green sheet ([0099] to [0128]). Ozeki further discloses laminating the green sheets and sintering the laminated green sheets ([0099] to [0128]). Ozeki does not disclose a binder removal process after laminating the green sheets and before sintering the laminated green sheets.
Ozaki-922 disclosed a method of making a magnet that is analogous to the method of Ozeki ([0050] to [0102]). Ozaki-922 discloses a binder removal process is performed after laminating the green sheets and before the sintering step in order to improve magnet density ([0092] to [0100]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a binder removal process after laminating the green sheets and before the sintering step as taught by Ozaki-922 in the process of Ozeki in order to improve magnet density as disclosed by Ozaki-922.
Regarding claim 7, Ozeki discloses that each green sheet is made by coating the mixture of magnet alloy and binder on a supporting substrate ([0114]). Ozeki does not disclose that each green sheet is made by injection molding. Ozaki-922 disclosed a method of making a magnet that is analogous to the method of Ozeki ([0050] to [0102]). Ozaki-922 discloses that the green sheet can be made by both a coating method and injection molding method ([0074]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a green sheet by injection molding as taught by Ozaki-922 in the process of Ozeki would be able to make a green sheet with success as disclosed by Ozaki-922.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki (US 2011/0012460), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujikawa (US 2018/0221951).
Regarding claim 10, Ozeki discloses that each green sheet is made by coating the mixture of magnet alloy powder and a binder ([0114]). Ozeki does not disclose that the binder is polyethylene or polypropylene. Fujikawa disclosed a method of making a magnet that is analogous to the method of Ozeki ([0034] to [0129]). Fujikawa discloses that the green sheet can be made by a coating method and injection molding method from a mixture of magnet powder and a binder and the binder can be polyethylene or polypropylene ([0088] to [0106]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a green sheet using polyethylene or polypropylene as a binder as taught by Fujikawa in the process of Ozeki would be able to make a green sheet with success as disclosed by Fujikawa.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki (US 2011/0012460), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP’317 (JP2001-068317A, IDS dated 08/07/2023).
Regarding claim 12, Ozeki discloses that a separating layer is made of ceramic ([0114]). Ozeki does not disclose that the separating is made of the material as recited in claim 12. JP’317 disclosed a method of making a magnet laminate (Abstract). JP’317 discloses that the rare-earth oxide layer can be used as a separating layer between two magnet layers to reduce eddy current (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use rare-earth oxide layer as a separating layer between two magnet layers as taught by JP’317 in the process of Ozeki in order to reduce eddy current as disclosed by JP’317.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/276125 (US 20240127994 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/276125 teach all the limitations recited in the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The above cited arts do not teach that a Halbach-Array is manufactured by forming a first raw form, rotating the first raw form such that a particle orientation in the first raw form is orthogonal to the magnetic field orientation and injection molding a second raw form onto the rotated first raw form.
Conclusion
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