Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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 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 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (CN106252012, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a method of producing a Nd-Fe-B based magnet via sintering [0010]. Yu discloses that the method includes the steps of:
Forming a Nd-Fe-B press blank [0062], meeting the claimed limitation of forming a compact from an alloy powder.
Performing a two-stage sintering with an intermediate cooling [0072 – 0080]
Yu teaches an example that includes heating to a sintering temperature of 1022°C and holding for 4 hours, cooling to 700°C, then reheating to 1032°C and holding for 8 hours [0107]. This example meets the claimed limitations of:
A first stage sintering step of heating to a first temperature, cooling to a cooling temperature, and a second stage sintering step of heating to a second temperature.
The first temperature and second temperature being higher than 900°C.
The cooling temperature being not higher than 900°C.
Maintaining the compact at the first sintering temperature for a shorter time than it is maintained at the second sintering temperature.
Yu teaches that the magnet has a composition of praseodymium and neodymium, at least one transition metal including at least Fe, and boron [0102], meeting the claimed compositon of the R-T-B alloy powder of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yu teaches the example includes heating to a sintering temperature of 1022°C and holding for 4 hours, cooling to 700°C, then reheating to 1032°C and holding for 8 hours [0107]. This meets the claimed limitation of the first sintering temperature and second sintering temperature being not lower than 1000°C and not higher than 1100°C.
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yu teaches the example includes heating to a sintering temperature of 1022°C and holding for 4 hours, cooling to 700°C, then reheating to 1032°C and holding for 8 hours [0107]. This meets the claimed limitation of the first sintering time being not longer than half of the second sintering time.
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yu teaches the example includes heating to a sintering temperature of 1022°C and holding for 4 hours, cooling to 700°C, then reheating to 1032°C and holding for 8 hours [0107]. This meets the claimed limitation of the cooling temperature being not lower than 700°C and not higher than 900°C.
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yu teaches the example includes a composition of [0041, 0102]:
Praseodymium and neodymium being 32.5 mass%, meeting the claimed range of R
Transition metals including Cu, Co, Zr, and Fe being 65.46 mass%, meeting the range of T
Boron being 0.88 mass%, meeting the claimed range.
Wherein the composition of Yu satisfies the formula of claim 7.
14*0.88/10.8 = 1.14 and 65.46/55.85 = 1.17
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN106252012, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Yu teaches the invention as applied to claim 1. Yu teaches the example includes heating to a sintering temperature of 1022°C and holding for 4 hours, cooling to 700°C, then reheating to 1032°C and holding for 8 hours [0107]. Wherein the temperature for the second sintering temperature falls within the claimed range but the temperature for the first sintering temperature falls outside the claimed range.
However, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.)” (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the temperature of 1040°C (lower limit of claim 3, first stage sintering) and 1022°C (temperature taught by Yu) to have resulted in the same properties. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results or criticality of the claimed range over the prior art.
Alternatively or in addition to this, Yu states that this stage of the sintering can have a temperature of 1020 – 1080°C [0074], which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches the invention as applied to claim 1. Yu teaches the example includes heating to a sintering temperature of 1022°C and holding for 4 hours, cooling to 700°C, then reheating to 1032°C and holding for 8 hours [0107]. Wherein the time for the second sintering time falls within the claimed range but the time for the first sintering time falls outside the claimed range.
However, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.)” (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the time of 2 hrs (upper limit of claim 4, first stage sintering) and 4 hrs (time taught by Yu) to have resulted in the same properties. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results or criticality of the claimed range over the prior art.
Alternatively, Yu states “The present invention does not impose any particular limitation on the constant temperature firing time in the second stage. Those skilled in the art can select or adjust the time according to the actual production conditions, loading, oxygen content and green size.”. As such, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum time for the first sintering time depending on factors described by Yu, while minimizing the time necessary in order to reduce the production time required of the process. Given that Yu does not explicitly limit the time for the step, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention to achieve predictable results. Moreover, applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results or criticality of the claimed range over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20160293303 – Forming R-FeB sintered magnet with sintering, cooling, reheating
US20150206654 – Manufacturing sintered magnet with sintering, cooling for dimensional correction, and reheating
CN111489889 – Preparation of high homogeneity NdFeB magnet with sintering, cooling, re-sintering
CN106128677 – Forming NdFeB magnet with multistage sintering
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738