DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending, and claims 1 and 3-9 are currently under review.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-9 remain(s) pending in the application.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0042849).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a magnetic material having a magnetic phase α”-Fe16(NxZ1-x)2 wherein x ranges from 0 to 1 [abstract]. The examiner notes that the aforementioned formula of Wang et al. overlaps with the claimed Fe:N ratio. Wang et al. further teaches that a bct structure naturally forms through straining during annealing of the aforementioned magnetic material [0090, 0144, 0165].
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wang et al. further teaches that the material can further include C [abstract]. One of ordinary skill would understand that C and N have close atomic radii and therefore inclusion of C would naturally substitute at N locations within the crystal structure.
Regarding claims 5-6, Wang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wang et al. further teaches that an exemplary case of a unit cell length is 3.14 angstroms, which overlaps with the claimed range and results in an overlapping volume relative to that as claimed [0144]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wang et al. further teaches that a distance between Z atoms (which can be N, C, B, or O) and surrounding Fe atoms is 3.74 angstroms, wherein figure 1 of Wang et al. expressly depicts a distance of at least 3 times this length between like Z atoms [0041, fig.1].
Regarding claims 5-7, Wang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wang et al. does not expressly provide general teachings regarding a c-axis lattice constant or distance between N atoms as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that alloy structure is directly affected by alloy composition and manufacturing parameters. Wang et al. discloses an overlapping material composition as explained above. Wang et al. further teaches manufacturing the material through implantation of N ions such as through sputtering, nitriding, ion implantation, molecular beam epitaxy etc. [0006]. This is identical to the manufacturing of the instant application of nitrogen penetration through heat treatment, sputtering, ion implantation, and molecular beam epitaxy [0053 instant spec.]. Since Wang et al. discloses a substantially similar material composition and identical method of manufacture, similar overlapping features of lattice constants and distance between N atoms would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned composition of Wang et al. overlaps with the claimed N range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that Wang et al. is silent regarding any required Co, such that one of ordinary skill would recognize that Co is not required (ie. zero percent) which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2016/0042849) in view of Pieper (DE102018200373, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an inclusion of Co. Pieper discloses that it is known to include Co as an alloying element in an amount of up to 25 weight percent for soft magnetic materials of Fe16N2 to enable good manufacturability and processing [0004-0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the material of Wang et al. by alloying Co in the amount disclosed by Pieper for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Pieper and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Although not expressly disclosed by Pieper, one of ordinary skill in the art of metallurgy would readily understand that any amount of alloying inclusion would displace an equivalent amount of the balance material, which in the case of Wang et al. and Pieper, would be Fe.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (2016, Engineering perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in Fe via interstitial nitrogenation: N choose K).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a magnetic material including bct Fe8Nx wherein x ranges from 0 to 1 [abstract, p.1-3]. The examiner notes that the iron to nitrogen ratio of Zhang et al. overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 5-7, Zhang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. does not expressly provide general teachings regarding a c-axis lattice constant or distance between N atoms as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that alloy structure is directly affected by alloy composition and manufacturing parameters. Zhang et al. discloses an overlapping material composition as explained above. Zhang et al. further teaches manufacturing the material through sputtering [p.2]. This is identical to the manufacturing of the instant application of sputtering, among other means [0053 instant spec.]. Since Zhang et al. discloses a substantially similar material composition and identical method of manufacture, similar overlapping features of lattice constants and distance between N atoms would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned composition of Zhang et al. overlaps with the claimed N range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that Zhang et al. is silent regarding any required Co, such that one of ordinary skill would recognize that Co is not required (ie. zero percent) which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (2016, Engineering perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in Fe via interstitial nitrogenation: N choose K) in view of Pieper (DE102018200373, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an inclusion of Co. Pieper discloses that it is known to include Co as an alloying element in an amount of up to 25 weight percent for soft magnetic materials of Fe16N2 to enable good manufacturability and processing [0004-0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the material of Zhang et al. by alloying Co in the amount disclosed by Pieper for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Pieper and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Although not expressly disclosed by Pieper, one of ordinary skill in the art of metallurgy would readily understand that any amount of alloying inclusion would displace an equivalent amount of the balance material, which in the case of Zhang et al. and Pieper, would be Fe.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (2016, Engineering perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in Fe via interstitial nitrogenation: N choose K) in view of Jiang et al. (WO2013026007).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. does not expressly teach substituting a part of nitrogen with carbon as claimed. Jiang et al. discloses diffusing elements like C in addition to N to iron nitride magnetic materials because C is a known substitute for N [0065, 0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the material of Zhang et al. by including C as disclosed by Jiang et al. because C is a known substitute for N in iron nitride magnets. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) & MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang et al. only teaches a Fe:N ratio of 8 as shown in [0089]. The examiner cannot concur. [0089] of Wang et al. pertains to specific magnetic phases of Fe8N and Fe16N2. However, Wang et al. also broadly teaches that the α”-Fe16(NxZ1-x)2 phase magnetic material as relied upon in the above rejections achieves a bct structure after straining and annealing as explained above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections are further moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights