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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim sets forth that the RH rich phase is distributed at ‘the intersection’ of three or more grains. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim references ‘the green body’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 depends on claim 9, which in turn depends from claim 8 and claim 5. Claim 17 sets forth that RH and RL are in form of powders. This limitation is already present in instant claim 8, which sets forth that the diffusion material comprises powder of RH and RL. Thus the limitation of claim 17 already exists in claim 8, from which claim 17 depends. As this is the case, claim 17 does not further limit claim 9. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-9 and 11-16 and 18 are allowable over the prior art (it is noted that claims 11 and 15 are currently objected to).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art to Li (US20140065004; previously cited) teaches a similar permanent magnet having a composite main phase, wherein one of the main phases has a Ce rich phase having an overlapping Ce-content with the Ce-rich phase claimed. Li teaches that the other phase explicitly does not contain Ce (See Paragraph 24). Li teaches that including a single alloy containing Ce leads to the creation of permanent magnets having reduced properties and thus teaches away from incorporating Ce into each of the main phases. Kim in 11682506 is also noted as being relevant prior art. Kim teaches a permanent magnet having a Ce-rich phase and a Ce-poor phase; however Kim also teaches that the content of Ce in the Ce-poor phase is 0 wt% and not chosen to be between 0.1 and 1 wt% (See Examples 1-1 to 1-9, 3-1 to 3-6, 4-1 to 4-9, and 6-1 to 6-6). Those of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to arbitrarily provide 0.1 to 1 wt% Ce in such an alloy where Kim specifically shows the content is 0 wt%. Additionally Kim teaches a diffusion treatment that is different from the one that is claimed and would not appear to provide a content of RH in the grain boundaries that is greater than in said grains. Those of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to arbitrarily replace the diffusion treatment of Kim with the powder based diffusion of Lim as Kim teaches away from grain boundary diffusion (See Background; grain boundary diffusion effectively creates the claimed feature of RH content being greater in the grain boundaries providing a diffusion gradient). As this is the case, the claims cannot be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 9/17/26, with respect to the objections and rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims, rejections under USC 112, and rejections under USC103 of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn. The amendments to the claims render moot the objections and rejections under USC 112 and do not appear to contain new matter. The scope of the claims now set forth that the Ce-poor contains cerium in a non-zero amount. This overcomes the art rejection under USC 103 as is discussed above.
New claims 11-18 are noted. While the new claims do not appear to include new matter, the claims give rise to two claim objections and a claim rejection under USC 112(d) as claim 17 does not appear to further limit the claims and claims 11 and 15 are objected to as having insufficient antecedent basis therein.
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 MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
