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 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. Claim s 1 and 6 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. Claim 1 recites a phosphate treatment limitation comprising stirring a slurry containing different components to obtain a SmFeN -based anisotropic magnetic powder having a surface coated with a phosphate. This claim only contains one active step of stirring. It is not clear what additional actions would be required to get from a stirred slurry to a coated powder. The specification does not provide an explanation of the scope of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation that an amount of aluminum element in the aluminum source is not higher than 0.02 mol per 100g of the raw material SmFeN – based anisotropic magnetic powder . It is not clear if the concentration of Al is 0.02 mol in the aluminum source specifically or if the concentration is 0.02 mol in the entire slurry . The specification does not provide an explanation of the scope of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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 , 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2010202974 of Shigeoka . Claim 1 mentions a method for producing a phosphate coated SmFeN -based anisotropic magnetic powder. The method u ses a phosphate treatment involving a slurry containing a raw SmFeN powder, water, a phosphate source and an aluminum source. Shigeoka discloses a SmFeN - based magnetic powder for a bonded magnet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Para.[0002]. Shigeoka teaches water, Para. [0122], a phosphate source, Para.[0024], and an aluminum source, Para.[0025]. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes , a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) , see MPEP 2112.01(1) . Since all limitations of the powder formed from the method in claim 1 of the invention are disclosed by Shigeoka a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. Thus, c laim 1 is anticipated by Shigeoka . Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by stating that the amount of Al in the aluminum source is not higher than 0.02 mol per 100g of the raw material SmFeN -based powder. . It is not clear if the concentration of Al is 0.02 mol in the aluminum source specifically or if the concentration is 0.02 mol in the entire slurry, see 112(b) above. For the purposes of prior art this will be interpreted as encompassing the concentration of Al in the entire slurry. Shigeoka discloses Al as an optional component of the SmFeN -based powder , Para.[0025] . Shigeoka teaches working examples that do not contain any aluminum or aluminum source, Para.[0135]. The concentration of Al in the slurry, in this instance, is 0, which reads on the claimed range. Therefore, claim 6 is anticipated by Shigeoka . Claim 8 further limits the invention from claim 1 by stating that the slurry contains a calcium source. Shigeoka teaches that the SmFeN based magnetic powder is mixed with metallic calcium, Para.[0056]. Therefore, claim 8 is anticipated by Shigeoka . 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. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010202974 of Shigeoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2010261038 of Imaoka . Claim 2 further limits the invention from claim 1 by stating that an inorganic acid is added to the slurry to adjust a pH to at least 1 but not higher than 4.5. While Shigeoka teaches that when the pH in the solution rises, the particle surface is not uniformly treated and Fe is eluted, Para. [0068], Shigeoka does not teach a specific range for pH. Imaoka discloses a method for manufacturing a composite magnetic material for magnet in the same field of endeavor as Shigeoka , Para. [0001]. Imaoka discloses that surface treating liquids usable are preferably acidic solutions and are inorganic acids such as hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid. Imaoka teaches that if the pH is less than 0, the R—Fe—N based magnetic material rapidly dissolves in some cases, the pH is desirably controlled between 0 or more and less than 7 . In order to mildly carry out the surface treatment and hold back an unnecessary elution of the R—Fe—N based magnetic material to the minimum, the especially preferable pH range is 2 or more and less than 7 , Para.[0132] . The especially preferable pH range of 2-7 disclosed in Imaoka overlaps with the claimed pH range of 1-4.5 listed in claim 2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05(1) . Based on the pH teachings of Shigeoka and the pH teaches and ranges disclosed by Imaoka , it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an inorganic acid to limit the pH of the phosphate surface treatment slurry disclosed in Shigeoka to the especially preferable range of 2-7 taught in Imaoka in order to mildly carry out the surface treatment and minimize unnecessary elution of the magnetic material. Claims 3 and 4 are also rejected as they depend on claim 2. Claim 3 further limits claim 2 by adding that the inorganic acid is added to adjust the pH of the slurry for at least 10 minutes. While Shigeoka teaches a mixing of all of the components in the slurry for 10 mins in the working examples disclosed, Para.[0135], Shigeoka is silent on the amount of time required for the mixing of the pH adjustment component specifically. Imaoka discloses a pH adjustment solution like the one in the claimed invention , Para. [0178] . Imaoka teaches that the solution and corresponding reaction solution was simultaneously dropwise charged and reacted for 10 min; then the dropping of the pH adjustment solution and reaction solution was stopped , [0178] . Therefore, based on the working examples of Shigeoka and the pH adjustment solution reaction taught in Imaoka , it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the inorganic acid to the slurry for at least 10 mins in order to adequately lower the pH and complete the pH adjustment reaction. Claim 4 adds an additional limitation to claim 2 in that it further specifies the pH of the slurry to at least 1.6 but not higher than 3.9. While Shigeoka teaches that when the pH in the solution rises, the particle surface is not uniformly treated and Fe is eluted, Para. [0068], Shigeoka does not teach a specific range for pH. Imaoka discloses a method for manufacturing a composite magnetic material for magnet in the same field of endeavor as Shigeoka , Para. [0001]. Imaoka discloses that surface treating liquids usable are preferably acidic solutions and are inorganic acids such as hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid. Imaoka teaches that if the pH is less than 0, the R—Fe—N based magnetic material rapidly dissolves in some cases, the pH is desirably controlled between 0 or more and less than 7. In order to mildly carry out the surface treatment and hold back an unnecessary elution of the R—Fe—N based magnetic material to the minimum, the especially preferable pH range is 2 or more and less than 7, Para.[0132]. The especially preferable pH range of 2-7 disclosed in Imaoka overlaps with the claimed pH range of 1.6-3.9 listed in claim 4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05(1) . Based on the pH teachings of Shigeoka and the pH teaches and ranges disclosed by Imaoka , it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an inorganic acid to limit the pH of the phosphate surface treatment slurry disclosed in Shigeoka to the especially preferable range of 2-7 taught in Imaoka in order to mildly carry out the surface treatment and minimize unnecessary elution of the magnetic material. Claim s 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010202974 of Shigeoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2018081970 of Hayashi . Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by adding that the SmFeN powder is heat treated in the temperature range of 150°C-330 °C in an oxygen-containing atmosphere. While Shigeoka does not teach a heat treatment in this range, Hayashi discloses a method for producing an Iron-based magnet alloy powder including rare earth element, and teaches heat treatment of the magnet powder in a more preferrable range of 120°C-180 °C. Hayashi teaches this range in order to form a stable metal phosphate coating film, Para.[0084]. Hayashi also teaches an oxygen atmosphere in order to suppress rapid oxidation, which deteriorates magnetic properties, when the powder is pulverized and taken out into the atmosphere, after finely pulverizing, slight oxygen is introduced into an inert atmosphere to slowly oxidize the surface of the fine powder , Para.[0005] . The more preferable range of 120°C-180°C disclosed in Hayashi overlaps with the claimed range of 150°C-330°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05(1 ). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat treat the powder disclosed in Shigeoka in the temperature range taught in Hayashi in order to form a stable metal phosphate coating. Based on the teachings of Hayashi, i t would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct this heat treatment under an oxygen atmosphere to suppress rapid oxidation of the powder which deteriorates magnetic properties. Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by stating that the aluminum source is aluminum chloride or aluminum sulfate. While Shigeoka is silent on the source of aluminum that may be used in the SmFeN -based powder, Hayashi teaches an aluminum source that can include aluminum chloride and aluminum sulfate. Hayashi teaches that the aluminum compound must be a supply source of aluminum ions, Para .[0068]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the aluminum chloride or aluminum sulfate disclosed in Hayashi for an aluminum source for the powder disclosed in Shigeoka , as aluminum chloride and aluminum sulfate would provide aluminum Ions to the slurry. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010202974 of Shigeoka . Claim 9 further limits the invention from claim 1 by specifying a phosphate content in the powder of higher than 0.5% by mass. Shigeoka teaches a preferable amount of the phosphate compound of 0.1 – 4.0 wt % , Para.[0060] . The phosphate content range taught in Shigeoka overlaps with the phosphate content range of the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05(1). Therefore, claim 9 is obvious in view of Shigeoka . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 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. /Keith D. Hendricks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733