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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation " the green compact " in ln 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as ‘A manufacturing method of the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 1, comprising firing a green compact…’. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections. Claim s 1-4 and 6- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0255198 A1 to Murakawa et al. (hereinafter Murakawa ). Regarding claim 1 , Murakawa discloses a ferrite sintered magnet represented by R x Sr 1 - x (F e 12-y M y ) z O 19 in terms of atomic number ratio (para [0042]) , wherein R is selected from a group of rare earth elements including La and M is selected from a group of elements including Co (para [0043]) , x and y range from 0.01 to 0.5 , 0.01≤x≤0.5 and 0.01≤y≤0.5 and z ranges from 0.7 to 1.2 , 0.7≤z≤1.2 (para [0043]), which overlaps the instantly claimed formula A 1-x R x (F e 12-y C o y ) z O 19 in terms of atomic number ratio, wherein A is at least one selected from a group consisting of Sr, Ba and Pb, R is La, and 0.14 ≤ x ≤ 0.22 . Murakawa , recites 0.01≤x≤0.5 (para [0043]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. Murakawa recites 0. 01≤y≤0.5, and 0.7≤z≤1.2, para [0043]) . This provides (12-y ) * z of (11.5 to 11.99) * (0.7 to 1.2) = 8.05 to 14.4 which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 11.60 ≤ (12-y) * z ≤ 11.990. Murakawa y * z is 0.007 to 0.6, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.13 ≤ y * z ≤ 0.17 . Murakawa further discloses a CaO content of preferably 0.1 to 0.8 mass % ( para [0062]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.500 ≤ Mc ≤ 0.710 in which Mc is CaO content in mass% converted from a content of Ca included in the ferrite sintered magnet, and a SiO 2 content of preferably 0. 2 to 1.0 mass % (para [0061]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.410 ≤ Ms ≤ 0.485 in which Ms is SiO ₂ content in mass% converted from content of Si included in the ferrite sintered magnet. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists ’ . Regarding claim s 2 and 4 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 1, wherein Mc ( CaO content) is preferably 0.1 to 0.8 mass % (para [0062]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.500 ≤Mc ≤ 0.700 and Ms (S i O 2 content) is preferably 0.2 to 1.0 mass % (para [0061]), which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of 0.420 ≤ Ms ≤ 0.475 and 0.410 ≤ Ms ≤ 0.450. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. Regarding claim 3 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 2 having an average thickness of 2.5 mm (para [0127]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 3.2 mm or less for an arc sintered ferrite magnet. Regarding claim 6 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 1, wherein a BaO content is 0.01 to 2.0 mass% (para [0063]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0 ≤ Mb ≤ 0.150 in which Mb is BaO content in mass% converted from a content of Ba included in the ferrite sintered magnet. Regarding claim 7 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 1, wherein an Al 2 O 3 content is preferably 0.01 mass% or more (para [0064]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0 ≤ Ma ≤ 0.900 in which Ma is A l 2 O 3 content in mass% converted from a content of Al included in the ferrite sintered magnet. Note that para [0064] states that the magnet may contain Al and/or Cr. Al may not be present, which would provide the lower end of the instantly claimed range, 0%. Regarding claim 8 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according claim 1, wherein a Cr 2 O 3 content is preferably 0.01 mass% or more (para [0064]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0 ≤ Mr ≤ 0.100 in which Mr is C r 2 O 3 content in mass% converted from a content of Cr included in the ferrite sintered magnet. Note that para [0064] states that the magnet may contain Al and/or Cr. Cr may not be present, which would provide the lower end of the instantly claimed range, 0%. Regarding claim 9 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 1, as discussed above. The magnet is obtained by firing a green (molded) body (para [0102]). Claim 9 is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113 , which states “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. C ir. 1985) (citations omitted). MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero , 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product. The limitations directed to the method for producing the claimed composition are not considered to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. It is well settled that if the examiner can find a product in the prior art that is the same or so similar as to have been obvious, the burden can be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the process for producing the composition somehow imparts a patentable distinction to the composition under examination. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakawa in view of US 2018/ 0083499 A1 to Hisanabe et al. (hereinafter Hisanabe ). Regarding claim 5 , Murakawa discloses the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 4 . Murakawa further discloses that the magnet can be used for motors (para [0038]) but is silent regarding ferrite magnets having an average thickness of 3.3 mm or more and 6.5 mm or less. However, Hisanabe does teach a ferrite sintered magnet having a formula A 1-x R x (F e 12-y M y ) z O 19 where A is selected from Sr, Ba, Ca, and Pb, R is La and M is Co (para [0026]) wherein the magnets (10) are part of a motor (Figs 1 and 2 and para [0023]-[0023]). The magnets have a thickness of 3.5 mm (Table 4). 3.5 mm falls within the instantly claimed range of 3.3 mm to 6.5 mm. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the ferrite magnet for the intended use, particularly for use in a motor, to provide a large magnetic flux and ultimately improve the characteristics of the motor comprising said ferrite magnet ( Hisanabe , para [000 7 ] and Murakawa , para [0013] ). Regarding claim 10 , Murakawa discloses a method of manufacturing the ferrite sintered magnet according to claim 1 comprising firing a green compact (para [0100] and [0102]) but is silent regarding the thickness of the compact, particularly regarding the compact having an average thickness of 3.5 mm or more and 8.0 mm or less. However, Hisanabe does teach a ferrite sintered magnet having a formula A 1-x R x (F e 12-y M y ) z O 19 where A is selected from Sr, Ba, Ca, and Pb, R is La and M is Co (para [0026]) wherein the magnets (10) are part of a motor (Figs 1 and 2 and para [0023]-[0023]). The magnets are manufactured by firing green compacts (para [0030]-[0033]) that have a thickness of 3.5 mm (Table 2). 3.5 mm overlaps the instantly claimed range of 3.5 mm to 8.0 mm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the green compact to ensure the optimal size of the fired ferrite magnet for use in a motor, and thereby provide a large magnetic flux and ultimately improve the characteristics of the motor comprisin g said magnet ( Hisanabe , para [0007] and Murakawa , para [0013]). This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above. 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 . Claim s 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11636964 (hereinafter 964). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach overlapping ferrite sintered magnets comprising overlapping M-type ferrites having overlapping formulas with overlapping amounts of CaO , SiO 2 , BaO , Al 2 O 3 and Cr 2 O 3 (instant claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 and 964 claims 1-6) . See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. The main difference between the claims is that the 964 claims do not expressly recite the thickness of the magnets as set forth in instant claims 3 and 5 . However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the ferrite sintered magnet for the intended use, particularly for the rotating electric machine as set forth in 964 claim 7. Instant claim 9 is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113 , cited above . In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11664142 (hereinafter 142). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach overlapping ferrite sintered magnets comprising overlapping M-type ferrites having overlapping formulas with overlapping amounts of CaO , SiO 2 , BaO , Al 2 O 3 and Cr 2 O 3 (instant claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 and 142 claims 1-2). See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. The main difference between the claims is that the 142 claims do not expressly recite the thickness of the magnets as set forth in instant claims 3 and 5 . However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the ferrite sintered magnet for the intended use, particularly for the rotating electric machine as set forth in 142 claim 7. Instant claim 9 is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113, cited above. In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2678 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /L.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /Matthew E. Hoban/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734