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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/3/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-1 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/6/26.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein, in the first mixing step, the (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide, Fe302, and B302 are mixed in a molar ratio of 5-7 : 13-15 : 2-5". The formula of the (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide is not provided. Thus it is unclear how many moles of Nd and Pr are present in one mole of the mixed oxide. Accordingly, the molar ratios of the elements are unknown. It is unclear if any oxide containing Nd and Pr can be used, or if only a specific oxide will form the claimed magnetic powder using the claimed molar ratios.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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 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 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 1 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020022298 7A1), in view of Qui et al. (CN 114574873 A), as machine translated, and Ishigaki et al. (US 4769063 A).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches “a method of preparing magnetic powder and magnetic powder prepared thereby, and more particularly, to the method of preparing NdFeB-based magnetic powder” (which reads upon “a method of preparing a Nd-Fe-B based magnetic powder comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Choi teaches that “the iron oxide may be a material well-known in this art, for example, ferrous oxide (FeO), ferric oxide (Fe2O3) or a mixed thereof (Fe3O4)” (which reads upon “preparing iron oxide (Fe2O3) in a second precursor preparation step”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0069]). Choi teaches that “a mixture containing the iron powder, neodymium oxide, boron and calcium may be prepared by adding the neodymium oxide, the boron and the calcium to the iron powder” (which reads upon “mixing the prepared [rare earth] oxide, the Fe2O3, and the [boron source] to prepare a first mixture in a first mixing step; mixing the first mixture with calcium (Ca) to prepare a second mixture in a second mixing step”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0055]; selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV C). Choi teaches that “the magnetic powder may be smoothly prepared by performing pressurization under the high pressure condition at a high temperature during the reduction reaction of iron oxide, thereby solving a problem in which particles are not diffused well due to an excessive amount of the by-products” (which reads upon “inducing diffusion while shaping and pressing the second mixture in a shaping step”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0060]). Choi teaches that “the problem caused by the excessive by-product may be solved because the mixture is pressure-molded at the high pressure within the above range along with the use of a reducing agent such as CaH2” (which reads upon “reducing the shaped and pressed second mixture to prepare a reduced magnetic substance containing Nd, iron (Fe), and boron (B) in a calcium reduction step”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0064]). Choi teaches that “after heat-treating the molded article and obtaining powder by pulverizing the molded article, there may be further included the steps of: removing a by-product using a quaternary ammonium-based methanol solution; and washing the powder from which the by-product is removed with a solvent” (which reads upon “powdering the reduced magnetic substance to prepare a powdered magnetic substance in a powdering step; and removing reduction by-products from the powdered magnetic substance in a by-product removal step”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0084]).
Choi is silent regarding preparing (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide containing neodymium (Nd) and praseodymium (Pr) in a first precursor preparation step.
Qui is similarly concerned with neodymium magnets, also known as neodymium iron boron magnets (paragraph [n0002]). Qui teaches “a device and method for recycling NdFeB waste to produce praseodymium-neodymium oxide” (which reads upon “preparing (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide containing neodymium (Nd) and praseodymium (Pr) in a first precursor preparation step”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon “wherein the (Nd,Pr) mixed oxide prepared in the first precursor preparation step is extracted from a waste permanent magnet”, as recited in instant claim 2; paragraph [n0001]). Qui teaches that “a neodymium iron boron waste recycling device and method for producing praseodymium oxide” (paragraph [n0003]). Qui teaches that “neodymium iron boron magnets are widely used in electronic products, such as hard drives, mobile phones, headphones, and battery-powered tools, and that during the production and cutting process of neodymium iron boron magnets, a large amount of cutting edge material and non-compliant waste material is generated” (paragraph [n0002]). Qui teaches “to maximize the recycling benefits while removing the coating, thus solving the problems in the prior art” (paragraph [n0004]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the neodymium oxide of Choi with praseodymium oxide, as taught by Qui to increase recycling and conservation of limited (and expensive) rare earth materials.
Choi is silent regarding preparing boron oxide (B203) in a third precursor preparation step.
Ishigaki is similarly concerned with Fe-B-R base rate earth magnet materials having a high-performance, particularly, method for producing the same (column 1, lines 5-10). Ishigaki teaches “to provide higher magnetic characteristics for the Fe-B-R base magnets and to enable the inexpensive production” (column 2, lines 5-10). Ishigaki teaches “preparing a mixed raw material powder comprising at least one of the oxides of rare earth elements R1, an iron powder and a boron containing powder selected from the group consisting of boron, ferroboron, boron oxide, and alloys or mixed oxides of the componential elements” (column 2, lines 40-50). Ishigaki teaches “using as starting materials such inexpensive heavy rare earth metal oxide, Fe-powder and at least one of pure boron powder, Fe-B powder and boron-containing powder (e.g., B2 O3)” (column 3, lines 40-50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the boron of Choi with B2O3, as taught by Ishigaki because Ishigaki teaches that either one is acceptable as a raw material powder when producing R-Fe-B magnetic powder. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP § 2144.06 II.
Regarding claim 10, modified Choi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Choi teaches that “13 g of Nd2O3 and 27 g of Fe2O3 were uniformly wet-mixed in ethanol using a ball-mill, after which the resulting mixture was dried under a vacuum atmosphere at 900° C” (paragraph [0107]). Choi teaches that “25.62 g of CaH2 was further put into the dried sample, and then mixed together again using a turbula mixer” (paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Choi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Choi teaches “heat-treating a molded article prepared by pressure-molding a mixture containing the iron powder, neodymium oxide, boron and calcium at a pressure of 22 MPa or more” (paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Choi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Choi teaches that “the heat-treatment may proceed at a temperature of 800° C. to 1,100° C. under an inert gas atmosphere for 10 minutes to 6 hours” (paragraph [0083]; overlapping ranges). Choi is silent regarding the rate of increasing the temperature. Regarding the subject limitation, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claims 14-15, modified Choi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Choi teaches that “removing a by-product using a quaternary ammonium-based methanol solution” (paragraph [0084]). Choi teaches that “the quaternary ammonium-based methanol solution may be an NH4NO3-MeOH solution” (paragraph [0086]; NH4NO3-MeOH is an ammonium salt). Choi teaches that “after the step of preparing the magnetic powder, the present method may further include the steps of: pulverizing the molded article to obtain powder; removing a by-product using a quaternary ammonium-based methanol solution; and washing the powder from which the by-product is removed with a solvent, followed by drying” (paragraph [0022]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020022298 7A1), in view of Qui et al. (CN 114574873 A), as machine translated, and Ishigaki et al. (US 4769063 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitani et al. (US 20150187493 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Qui teaches “a device and method for recycling NdFeB waste to produce praseodymium-neodymium oxide” (which reads upon “wherein the (Nd,Pr) mixed oxide prepared in the first precursor preparation step is extracted from a waste permanent magnet”, as recited in instant claim 2; paragraph [n0001]).
Choi is silent regarding wherein the Fe2O3 prepared in the second precursor preparation step is prepared through a water spray process.
Mitani is similarly concerned with a soft magnetic powder (paragraph [0001]). Mitani teaches that “the soft magnetic powder is preferably iron based particles” (paragraph [0013]). Mitani teaches that “before the reduction annealing process, an atomizing process of forming an iron oxide based powder from molten metal being an iron based raw material by the water atomizing method” (which reads upon “wherein the Fe2O3 prepared in the second precursor preparation step is prepared through a water spray process”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0074]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the Fe2O3 powder of Choi by water atomizing, as taught by Mitani because Choi is silent as to how the iron oxide powder is prepared and Mitani teaches that water atomizing is a known and tested method of preparing iron oxide powder for use in magnets.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020022298 7A1), in view of Qui et al. (CN 114574873 A), as machine translated, and Ishigaki et al. (US 4769063 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zakotnik et al. (US 20190198208 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above.
Choi is silent regarding wherein, in the first mixing step, the (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide, Fe302, and B302 are mixed in a molar ratio of 5-7 : 13-15 : 2-5. In light of the 112(b) rejection above, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the specification as being met if near stoichiometric ratios are used. Paragraph [0076] of the instant application states that “a first mixing step is a step of mixing the prepared (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide, iron oxide, and boron oxide to prepare a first mixture in which the (Nd, Pr) mixed oxide, iron oxide, and boron oxide are mixed in a molar ratio according to stoichiometry”.
Zakotnik is similarly concerned with powder forming methods are useful in the preparation of Neodymium, Iron, Boron (NdFeB), and other compositionally complex, magnets (paragraph [0006]). Zakotnik teaches that “the term “NdFeB” refers to a composition comprising neodymium, iron, and boron, at least a portion of this being of the stoichiometry Nd2Fe14B” (paragraph [0163]). Zakotnik teaches that “a set of NdFeB powders was prepared from a stoichiometric Nd2Fe14B1 composition (12.3 at % Nd; 81.7 at % Fe; and 6 at % B)” (which reads upon claim 3; paragraph [0269]). Zakotnik teaches that “compositional homogeneity within an individual powder particle, especially for complex alloys, ultimately provides sintered bodies having superior compositional consistency throughout the sintered body, and so improved performance of that body” (paragraph [0005]). Zakotnik teaches that “the performance of such magnetic materials have been shown to depend quite significantly on the homogeneity of the sintered magnetic body, and this homogeneity can, at least in part, be attributed to the size and compositional homogeneity of the precursor powder particles” (paragraph [0006]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Choi to use a molar ratio according to stoichiometry, as taught by Zakotnik to increase compositional homogeneity of the magnetic powder thus improving the performance of materials made from the magnetic powder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The art of record does not teach calcinating the first mixture in a calcination step after the first mixing step.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights