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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim makes use of the abbreviation RH and the term “RH-rich” phase. The claim does not define this limitation at its first use (or any use). Thus it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim term are. For the sake of examination the term is considered to be drawn to heavy rare earth elements (HREE) as they are known in the art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim makes use of the abbreviation RL. The claim does not define this limitation at its first use (or any use). Thus it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim term are. For the sake of examination the term is considered to be drawn to light rare earth elements (LREE) as they are known in the art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The presence of the word presented in the phrase ‘optionally presented Cobalt’ seems unnecessary. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
The term “heavy rare earth”, RH and, RL, “light rare earth” in claims 1-2 and 8-9 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy rare earth” and “light rare earth” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These two terms generally have an indefinite scope as the designation of heavy or light rare earth is premised on the atomic number of the rare earth element. It is unclear which elements applicant considers to be heavy or light as this is not explicitly set forth. For the sake of examination, heavy rare earths are interpreted as being drawn to Dy, Tb, Ho, Er, TM, Yb, and Lu, which are the explicit examples given by applicant and those elements having a higher atomic number than those examples. For the sake of examination, light rare earths are interpreted as being drawn to Pr, Nd, La, and Ce, which are the explicit examples given by applicant and those elements having a lower atomic number than those examples. Claims 3-7 and 10 are dependent on one or more of these claims and rejected on the same basis.
Claims 1-10 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.
The term “thin” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim term ‘thin’ layer stripe is set forth as to what level of thickness is considered to be ‘thin’ as set forth. The term thin is a relative term, wherein any given thickness could be considered either ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ based upon a reference thickness. As no reference thickness is established, the scope of the term ‘thin’ is indefinite. Claims 2-10 are rejected on the same basis as they are dependent from claim 1.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As is set forth above, the claim limitation RH and RL are interpreted based on these limitations, but the claim scope as set forth is unclear. Claims 3-7 and 10 are dependent on one or more of these claims and rejected on the same basis.
Claims 1-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 each recite a broad recitation of various limitations in terms of a phrase that does not begin with the word preferably, and the claim also recites further limitations that are set forth preferably, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the sake of examination, these ‘preferable’ limitations are considered to be optional and need not be present in the prior art to meet the claim limitations as set forth..
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 sets forth the use of the magnetic material as a motor, but fails to positively set forth any positive steps associated with its use or practice. As this is the case, the claim is considered to be an improper use claim as the scope of said use is wholly indefinite (See MPEP 2173.05(q)).
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Several terms are noted as being unclear possibly due to translation. The term ‘thin-layer stripe’ is unclear as it is unknown what constitutes a ‘stripe’ in the claimed context, rendering the claim scope indefinite. For the sake of examination a thin layer of the material is considered to meet the claim limitation.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in US20140065004 in view of Lim in US20220028609.
Regarding Claim 1: Li teaches the creation of an R-Fe-B permanent magnet, wherein the permanent magnet comprises at least a grain boundary and composite main phase grains (See Figure 1- composite main phase of NdFeB and (Ce,Re)FeB- grain boundaries are considered to be at the periphery of each of the grains as shown in the figure). Li teaches that the core structure having the RTB type phase structure comprises a Ce-rich main phase grains ((Ce,Re)-Fe-B) and Ce-poor main phase grains (See Figure 1 and paragraph 7). Li teaches that the Ce-poor main phase may have a composition NdaBb Fe100-a-b-cTMc, wherein Tm is a transition metal, a,b, and c overlap the ranges disclosed. The Ce-poor main phase of Li may contain 0 wt% Ce. Li thus teaches a Ce-poor main phase having an overlapping composition with that which is claimed. The Ce rich phase of Li may be of composition (CexRe1-x)aFe100-a-b-cBbTMc in mass percent. The value of x may be 0.4 to 0.6 and a may be 29 to 33wt%. The content of Ce within this phase may then be (0.4*29) to (0.6*33) or 11.6 to 19.8. Li thus teaches a Ce-rich main phase having an overlapping amount of cerium (See Paragraph 12).
Li is silent in terms of the composition of the grain boundary or the creation of a core-shell structure
However, Lim also teaches the creation and modification of rare earth magnets. Lim teaches that the coercivity of the magnets may be effectively increased while reductions in residual flux density can be suppressed by substitution of the rare earth magnet with elements such as Dy or Tb through a diffusion process (See Paragraph 6). Lim teaches that the cost of this substitution may be lowered, while providing similar results by providing the cited heavy rare earths with a portion of light rare earths (See Paragraph 16). Lim teaches that this diffusion is performed by coating the sintered magnet with a slurry of the rare earth element powders. Lim shows that the grain boundary structures formed may have a Dy or Ho (RH) content greater than that of the RH in the main phase grains (See Figure 6 and Paragraph 53). As the Dy and Ho are diffused along the grain boundaries and into the surfaces of the crystal phases, it would be necessary for the content of RH to always be greater than that of the main phase. Diffusion functions on the principle of there being a concentration gradient. If the amount of RH in the crystal grains were greater than that of the grain boundaries, diffusion would not occur. Lim shows such a structure in Figure 5. 121a corresponds to the main phase grains that may constitute a core, while 121 b-2, and b-1 may correspond to one or more shells that are created on the outer layer of the main phase grain. 121c corresponds to a grain boundary phase, which is distributed continuously along the grain boundaries and is present at triple points as a thin-layer stripe as claimed. The interpretation of this phrase is noted above and Lim shows that the grain boundary may be a thin layer as is shown in Figure 5. Lim is silent in terms of the grain boundary phase being comprised of RH-rich phases distributed in the form of an agglomerate within the grain boundary; however, Lim teaches that such a phase is created by the same process of diffusion from a surface slurry. The structure created by such a process would necessarily be the same as that which is claimed in terms of its structure (agglomerates, core/shell, and boundary phase) and the relative concentration of elements within each of the structures.
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to apply the grain boundary diffusion treatment of Lim to the rare earth magnet of Li in order to provide for the same structure as that which is claimed, being a core structure comprising Ce-rich and Ce-poor main phases having a core shell structure and a grain boundary phase, wherein RH-rich phases are distributed in the form of agglomerates within the grain boundary and RH in the grain boundary has a content greater than RH in the main phase grains. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the grain boundary diffusion treatment of Lim to the composition of Li in order to prevent decreases in coercivity and magnetic flux density. Those of ordinary skill would have been particularly motivated to use the process of Lim on the basis that the process affords similar effects as other processes at a reduced cost. Li also generally teaches the creation of materials at a reduced cost.
Regarding Claim 2: As is noted above, the process of Lim is premised on the laws of diffusion, which are driven by concentration gradients. The product created by Li in view of Lim would be expected to have the highest concentration of RH at the grain boundary based on the process, which diffuses RH elements through said grain boundary to the core/shell structure created at the main phase grains. Thus, those of ordinary skill would expect the composition of Li in view of Lim to have RH in the grain boundary at a content greater than that of RH in the shell. Alternatively, it is noted that the product of Li in view of Lim is made by the same process as that which is claimed and disclosed. Lim shows the use of the same process in Example 5 for example, wherein powders of the main phase are provided, sintered, and a diffusion treatment is performed thereon. These are the same steps as discussed in instant claim 5 and 8. As the product of Li in view of Lim is one created by the same process as that which is claimed, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to have the same structure as that which is claimed as such a structure is derived from the process used.
Regarding Claim 3: Li teaches that each of the RTB type phases constituting the main phase grains have a composition (CexR1-x)aFe-100-a-b-cBbTMc, wherein x is from 0.4 to 0.8, a is 27-33, b is 0.8 to 1.5, and c is 0.5 to 2, in weight percentage. Tm may be an element such as Co and R may be Nd (See Paragraph 7). This composition overlaps the claimed composition in terms of all of the components and variables.
Regarding Claim 4: The instant claim is set forth in terms of product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations are given patentable weight based on the implications of the process and not the actual manipulations as set forth. Ultimately, the claim is drawn to a product and not the process as delineated. The implications of the process as set forth are the creation of the composition and structure as is described in claims 1 and claims 2, wherein main grain phases are provided with a high and low Ce concentration, and having a grain boundary phase having particular elements, such as an RH element. Li in view of Lim teach such a structure having a first and second main phase being a low-Ce and high-Ce phase and having a grain boundary phase derived from a diffusion treatment. The structure of Li in view of Lim is the same as the implied structure of the product-by-process limitations. It is further noted that Li in view of Lim obviate the claim process of mixing the master alloys, molding, sintering and then performing a diffusion treatment (See Paragraph 44-52 of Li and Example 5 of Lim).
Regarding Claim 5 and 8: Li in view of Lim teach a method of creating a permanent magnet according to claim 1 as is discussed above. Li teaches that the process of creating such a magnet comprises mixing a powder of a low Ce master alloy and a powder of a high Ce auxiliary alloy (See Paragraph 45 and 48). The mixed powder is then press molded (See Paragraph 49) and sintered (See paragraph 50) to create a blank.
Li is silent in terms of a diffusion treatment of the sintered blank.
However, Lim teaches that a diffusion treatment may be performed on R-Fe-B based magnets in order to improve the coercivity of the magnet and prevent decreases in magnetic flux density (See paragraph 6 and 16). Lim teaches that such a diffusion process may be performed by providing a slurry of Dy-hydride (RH powder) and Nd-hydride (LH powder) on the surface of the sintered body (blank) and heated at a temperature of 900C for 6 hours (heat treatment; See Paragraph 122-123). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the diffusion treatment of Lim to the sintered body of Li as both are rare earth permanent magnets. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the process of Lim to the material of Li on the basis that they would expect the same improvements in terms of maintaining coercivity and magnetic flux density (See Paragraph 16).
Regarding Claim 6: Li teaches that the Ce-poor main phase may have a composition NdaBb Fe100-a-b-cTMc, wherein Tm is a transition metal, a, b, and c overlap the ranges disclosed. The Ce-poor main phase of Li may contain 0 wt% Ce. Li thus teaches a Ce-poor main phase having an overlapping composition with that which is claimed. The Ce rich phase of Li may be of composition (CexRe1-x)aFe100-a-b-cBbTMc in mass percent. The value of x may be 0.4 to 0.6 and a may be 29 to 33wt%. The content of Ce within this phase may then be (0.4*29) to (0.6*33) or 11.6 to 19.8. Li thus teaches a Ce-rich main phase having an overlapping amount of cerium (See Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 7: Li teaches that the press molding comprising mixing the powders of the low-Ce master alloy and the high Ce auxiliary alloy and then molding under a magnetic field to form a green body (See Paragraph 15-17).
Regarding Claim 9: Lim teaches that the diffusion material may comprise 50 wt% of a Dy-hydride (RH powder) and 50 wt% of a Nd-hydride (RL powder) (See Table 5 and Example 5). Lim thus teaches a diffusion material falling squarely within the composition claimed.
Regarding Claim 10: Li in view of Lim teaches the creation of a permanent magnet having the structure and composition as set forth in claim 1.
Li is silent in terms of applications using rare earth permanent magnets, such as their use in motors.
However, Lim teaches that rare earth permanent magnets may be used in the creation of motors, such as a traction or EPS motor (See Paragraphs 39-44 and Figure 1). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the magnet of Li in view of Lim in such as in a motor as it is established as a conventional use for such a magnet. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the magnet of Li in view of Lim in conventional applications for rare earth permanent magnets in order to increase the industrial applicability of such a product.
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
Prosecution Insights