DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under review.
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 7/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/28/2026.
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) 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inohara et al. (JP2014236195, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Shindo et al. (JP2001313206, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 11, Inohara et al. discloses an anisotropic rare earth magnetic powder having a formula of RvFe100-v-w-xNwMx; wherein R is at least one or more rare earth elements such as Sm and La among others, M is a metal element such as W among others, and v ranges from 3 to 30, w ranges from 5 to 15, and x ranges from 0 to 2.5 [abstract, 0001-0002, 0017-0019]. The examiner notes that the aforementioned composition of Inohara et al. overlaps with the instantly claimed R, Fe, N, and W amounts, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Inohara et al. does not expressly teach the additional inclusion of La in an amount of 0.15 to 0.3 as instantly claimed. However, the examiner submits that this feature would appear to have been obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art. Specifically, Shindo et al. discloses a method of making R-T-N anisotropic magnetic powders [0001]; wherein R specifically includes La in an amount of 0.1 to 3.5 percent in order to desirably control magnetic properties such as squareness [0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the composition of Inohara et al. by including La as disclosed by Shindo et al. to control magnetic properties as taught by Shindo et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed La amount of Shindo et al. and that of the instant claim is prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Inohara et al. further discloses a particle size of 0.5 to 10 micrometers, which broadly overlaps with the instantly claimed size parameters [0056]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, the examiner submits that the claimed size parameters and span would have been expected or would have naturally flowed from the magnetic powders of Inohara et al. as will be further explained. Specifically, the instant specification discloses obtaining the claimed size parameters by precipitating at a temperature of 0 to 50 degrees C at a pH of 5-9, wherein the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed particle size distribution is dependent on said precipitation step [0026-0027, 0097 spec.].
Accordingly, Inohara et al. discloses optimizing the particle size distribution by performing precipitation at temperature of 30 to 50 degrees C at a pH of 5 to 9 [0026, 0029]. The examiner notes that these parameters of Inohara et al. fall within the disclosed parameters of the instant specification of precipitating at a temperature of 0 to 50 degrees C at a pH of 5-9, such that an identical particle size distribution and span would have been expected to be present or would have naturally flowed from the disclosure of Inohara et al. absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2145(II). Regarding the further magnetic properties of claims 6 and 11, Inohara et al. does not expressly teach magnetic properties as claimed. However, the examiner submits that similar overlapping magnetic properties would have naturally flowed from the prior art. Specifically, the instant specification discloses obtaining these properties by providing an aqueous solution of magnetic materials, precipitating R and Fe material, oxidizing said precipitates, subsequent pretreating in a reducing atmosphere and performing diffusion at 300 to 900 degrees C, followed by final nitriding [0021-0042 spec.]. Accordingly, Inohara et al. discloses overlapping processing parameters of mixing an aqueous solution of R and Fe ions to form a precipitate containing said R and Fe, obtaining oxide particles containing R and Fe from said precipitate by means of heating in oxygen (ie. oxidizing), pretreating said oxide particles in reducing atmosphere to form a partial oxide, performing reduction diffusion at a temperature of 800 to 1100 degrees C, and finally nitriding the particles [0022, 0031, 0033, 0048, 0052-0053]. Since the prior art suggests an overlapping magnetic composition and method of manufacture, overlapping magnetic properties relative to those as claimed would have naturally flowed from the prior art. See MPEP 2145(II).
Regarding claims 2-3, 8-9, and 13-14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claims 1, 6, and 11 (see previous). The examiner notes that the composition of Shindo et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claims 6 and 11 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the claimed functional language of how magnetic properties are affected during calcination. However, as stated previously, since the prior art suggests an overlapping magnet composition and overlapping processing parameters, a similar overlapping property of magnetic properties after calcination would have naturally flowed from the prior art absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2145(II).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inohara et al. (JP2014236195, machine translation referred to herein) and Shindo et al. (JP2001313206, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kawano et al. (US 6,334,908).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses all of the limitations of these independent claims except for the magnetic properties as stated above (see previous). Inohara et al. further teaches exemplary coercive forces of at least 17 kOe, such that one of ordinary skill would recognize the scope of Inohara et al. to reasonably include high coercive forces above 17 kOe [table1].
Kawano et al. further discloses that magnetic properties (ie. residual magnetic flux density) are greatly dependent on the particle size and shape, wherein magnet powders having a sphericity of 78% or more and average acicularity of 75% or more can achieve desirably high residual magnetization values of over 125 emu/g [abstract, col.8 In.21-34, fig.4,6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the powder of the aforementioned prior art by achieving a powder shape as disclosed by Kawano et al. such that a desirably high residual magnetization can be achieved. The examiner notes that the disclosed magnetization of Kawano et al. overlaps with that as instantly claimed, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claims 1, 6, and 11 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a circularity value as claimed. Kawano et al. discloses an Sm-Fe-N magnetic powder [abstract]; wherein a particle sphericity of greater than 78 percent (ie. greater than 0.78) is obtained in order to improve residual magnetization, wherein the particle sphericity is represented by the same formula as disclosed in the specification [col.3 In.1-6, col.7 ln.1-22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by obtaining a sphericity as disclosed by Kawano et al. such that residual magnetization can be improved. The examiner notes that the disclosed sphericity of Kawano et al. falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claims 8-9, and 13-14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claims 6 and 11 (see previous). The examiner notes that the composition of Shindo et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claims 6 and 11 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the claimed functional language of how magnetic properties are affected during calcination. However, as stated previously, since the prior art suggests an overlapping magnet composition and overlapping processing parameters, a similar overlapping property of magnetic properties after calcination would have naturally flowed from the prior art absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2145(II).
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano et al. (US 2002/0029824) in view of Shindo et al. (JP2001313206, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, Kawano et al. discloses anisotropic magnetic Sm-Fe-N powders [0004]; wherein said powders have a composition of Sm2Fe17N3, which corresponds to a (v-x) value of approximately 9, w value of approximately 13, and z value of 0 as determined by the examiner [0028].
Kawano et al. does not expressly teach an inclusion of La as claimed. Shindo et al. discloses a method of making R-T-N anisotropic magnetic powders [0001]; wherein R specifically includes La in an amount of 0.1 to 3.5 percent in order to desirably control magnetic properties such as squareness [0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the composition of Kawano et al. by including La as disclosed by Shindo et al. to control magnetic properties as taught by Shindo et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed La amount of Shindo et al. and that of the instant claim is prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kawano et al. further discloses obtaining an average particle size of 0.7 to 4 micrometers, which overlaps with the claimed range [0054]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Kawano et al. does not expressly teach the further narrow size distributions of D10, D50, D90, or a span as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the claimed size parameters and span would have been expected or would have naturally flowed from the magnetic powders of Kawano et al. as will be further explained. Specifically, the instant specification discloses obtaining the claimed size parameters by precipitating at a temperature of 0 to 50 degrees C at a pH of 5-9, wherein the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed particle size distribution is substantially dependent on said precipitation step [0026-0027, 0097 spec.].
Accordingly, Kawano et al. discloses precipitating particles at a pH of 8 [0094]. Kawano et al. is silent regarding any specific temperature, such that one of ordinary skill would understand the process of Kawano et al. to proceed at ambient (ie. room temperature) absent a specific teaching to the contrary, which still meets the aforementioned ranges. Since the paramters of Kawano et al. fall within those as stated above, an identical particle size distribution and span would have been expected to be present or would have naturally flowed from the disclosure of Kawano et al. absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2145(II).
Regarding the further magnetic properties as recited in claim 11, Kawano et al. further teaches achieving a coercive force of greater than 17 kOe and residual magnetiziation of at least 130 emu/g, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0054]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 8-9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claims 1 and 6 (see previous). The examiner notes that the composition of Shindo et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the powder of claims 1 and 6 (see previous). Kawano et al. further teaches controlling a particle sphericity to be greater than 78 percent (ie. greater than 0.78) is obtained in order to improve residual magnetization [abstract, 0014, 0016].
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claim 6 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the claimed functional language of how magnetic properties are affected during calcination. However, since the prior art suggests an overlapping magnet composition and overlapping structure of particle size, a similar overlapping property of magnetic properties after calcination would have naturally flowed from the prior art absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2145(II).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano et al. (US 2002/0029824) in view of Shindo et al. (JP2001313206, machine translation referred to herein) and Inohara et al. (JP2014236195, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner notes that the limitations of claim 11 are identical to those of claim 6 except for a z amount greater than zero and increase magnetic properties. Accordingly, the prior art of Kawano et al. and Shindo et al. meet all of the aforementioned limitations for the reasons stated above.
Regarding the claimed magnetic properties, the examiner notes that the ranges of coercive force and residual magnetization of Kawano et al. as stated above further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an inclusion of W as claimed. Inohara et al. discloses a similar R-Fe-N anisotropic magnetic powder wherein it is known to include W in an amount of up to 2.5 percent to improve magnetic properties [0008, 0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the powder of the aforementioned prior art by further including W in an amount of up to 2.5 percent to improve properties. The examiner notes that the overlap between the inclusion amount of Inohara et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claim 11 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the claimed functional language of how magnetic properties are affected during calcination. However, since the prior art suggests an overlapping magnet composition and overlapping structure of particle size, a similar overlapping property of magnetic properties after calcination would have naturally flowed from the prior art absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2145(II).
Regarding claims 13-14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the magnetic powder of claim 11 (see previous). The examiner notes that the composition of Shindo et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the powder of claim 11 (see previous). As stated above, Kawano et al. further teaches controlling a particle sphericity to be greater than 78 percent (ie. greater than 0.78) is obtained in order to improve residual magnetization [abstract, 0014, 0016].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 regarding the 103 rejections over Inohara et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examples of Inohara et al. have particle sizes of 2 micrometers which is contrary to the particle size range of 5 to 300 micrometers of Shindo such that the combination is not proper. The examiner cannot concur. Inohara et al. teaches a broad particle size range of up to 10 micrometers as explained above. Therefore, applicant’s reliance on specific examples which were not relied upon in the previous rejections is moot because specific examples do not constitute a teaching away from the prior art. See MPEP 2123.
Applicant argues that Shindo is directed to increasing magnetizability, which is contrary to the disclosure of Inohara et al. to increase coercivity. The examiner cannot concur. The references do not expressly discredit or criticize each other, such that the examiner cannot consider magnetizability vs. coercivity to constitute a teaching away. See MPEP 2145(X)(D).
Applicant then argues that Inohara et al. does not teach controlling the particle size span as claimed such that there is no motivation for deriving the claimed concept. The examiner cannot concur. The previous rejection is based on inherency because Inohara et al. discloses an overlapping composition and identical method of manufacture, such that overlapping, substantially similar particle size “span” features would have naturally flowed. The presence of “motivation” is irrelevant, contrary to applicant’s allegations. Since applicant does not provide any reasoning or evidence as to how the powder of Inohara et al. is materially different such that the claimed “span” properties would not be present, the examiner cannot concur.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 regarding the 103 rejections over Kawano et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Kawano et al. are not persuasive insomuch as they relate to the arguments already presented over Inohara et al. above.
The examiner further notes that Kawano et al. broadly teaches a particle size of up to 10 micrometers [abstract], which overlaps with the range of Shindo et al. such that the examiner cannot consider there to be a teaching away.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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