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 Group I (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 07/07/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-10
Withdrawn: claims 5-10
Under examination: claims 1-4
Rejected: claims 1-4
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 2-4 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.
Claims 2-4 each use multiple instances of “preferably” language, which is considered indefinite “exemplary claim language”, because it is unclear whether the preferences limit the scope of the claims; thus, the claims are rendered indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(d)). In the interest of compact prosecution, the “preferably” language will be considered optional, and therefore non-limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US 20170221615 A1).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A rare earth permanent magnet, comprising a main phase structure of R2T14B crystal grain, wherein:
R is a rare earth element;
T comprises at least Mn, Fe, and optionally a transition metal comprising Co;
B is boron;” Chen teaches manufacturing an R-T-B magnet (Abstract) having an R2T14B main phase [0025], wherein R is a rare earth element [0005]-[0006], T may include at least Mn, Fe, Co, and/or Mn [0005], and B is boron [0005].
With regard to the claimed “the permanent magnet further comprises Mn and a heavy rare earth element diffused and distributed in a grain boundary; the heavy rare earth element is at least one selected from Dy, Ho, and Tb.”, Chen teaches an example wherein a rare earth compound powder containing an Ho compound, a Dy compound, Mn, as well as other elements [0090] is formed into a slurry, coated onto a magnet block, and diffusion sintered [0090], Table 7. Diffusion means that the diffusion elements necessarily diffuse through the surface of the magnet and become distributed in the grain boundaries; this is evidenced by the fact that in paragraph [0058], Chen states that “The heavy rare earth elements gradient along the depth of the magnet is less than that in a magnet having a density above 99.5% of theoretical density and produced by a conventional manufacturing technique after the same diffusion process. 2) In the area that is within 1000 μm of the surface, the average concentration of heavy rare earth elements in grain boundary is at least 0.7 wt % higher than that in grain center.” Therefore, the Mn which is also in the diffusion slurry must also be in the grain boundary.
In the alternative, although not explicitly stated, it is prima facie expected that the Mn which is in the slurry is also diffused and distributed into a grain boundary(s). This is by nature of diffusion as a process, which inherently involves atoms diffusing from a surface, inwards into the magnet, across grain boundaries.
Regarding claim 2, Chen meets the limitation for R in at least para. [0005]-[0006], which lists the elements for R.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the § 112(b) rejection above, all of the limitations preceded by “preferably” will be treated as optional, and therefore non-limiting; in addition, with regard to the claimed “…further, the first-stage heat treatment” and “…further, the second stage heat treatment”, these are also treated as non-limiting because they are further limiting a “preferably” limitation which is itself non-limiting.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Chen teaches coating a magnet with a slurry (i.e., diffusion source) and performing diffusion treatment [0090].
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20170221615 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the magnet of claim 1 above, but does not explicitly teach that x1>x2 and that y1>y2 (based on the definitions of claim 3).
However, Chen does teach that longer diffusion times lead to better and more consistent diffusion depths [0056]. A POSITA would be motivated to vary the durations of diffusion such that the diffusion metals fully diffuse beyond merely the depth of the surface, because greater diffusion depths allow for improved magnetic properties, as is implied from the fact that the objective of Chen is to achieve higher concentrations at depths as deep as 1000 µm below the surface of the magnet [0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to increase diffusion times such that the concentrations of the diffusion material is greater at certain depths (e.g. 500 µm, 1000µm – Table 5), as doing so would result in improved magnetic properties – see for example, depth of 1000 µm which has a greater concentration of rare earth than at 500 µm for the grain border in Example 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights