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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023 and 10/17/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III: claim 12-16 drawn to a product, a bonded magnet in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Therefore, claims 1-10 drawn to a method of preparing an anisotropic magnetic powder compression molded product and claim 11 drawn to a method of preparing a bonded magnet belong to the non-elected groups and hereby, withdrawn for further consideration.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Therefore, claims 12-16 are being examined on merit in this office action.
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 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi Asada et.al. [US 20200211742A1] (Asada hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, Asada discloses a bonded magnet (Abstract, [0007]), comprising:
a magnetic powder; and
a cured thermosetting resin ([0007]),
the bonded magnet having a magnetic powder filling factor of 71 vol% or more ([0048]) and a magnetic orientation ratio of 80% or more ([0051]).
Asada’s magnetic powder filling factor is incorporated within a range as recited in the instant claim.
Asada’s magnetic orientation ratio is overlapping with a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have magnetic orientation ratio, selected from Asada’s teaching, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Asada further discloses a filling factor of less than 71 % by volume tends to lead to insufficient remanence ([0048]) and insufficient remanence tends to lead to insufficient torque during use in applications such as motors ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention was made, to have Asada’s teaching of the filling factor to provide a sufficient remanence in the bonded magnet as required by the intended application.
Regarding claim 13, all the discussions above claim 12 are applicable for claim 13, in addition, Asada discloses the magnetic powder is a SmFeN-based magnetic powder (the magnetic powder is preferably a SmFeN magnetic powder because of its heat resistance and absence of rare metals [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, all the discussions above claim 12 are applicable for claim 14, in addition, Asada discloses an average particle size of the magnetic powder is 10 μm or less ([0016]).
Asada’s average particle size of the magnetic powder is incorporated within a range as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, all the discussions above claim 12 are applicable for claim 16, in addition, Asada discloses a remanence of the bonded magnet is more preferably 0.8 Tor more and a remanence of less than 0.75 T tends to lead to insufficient torque during use in applications such as motors. ([0050]).
Asada’s remanence of the bonded magnet is overlapping with a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have remanence of the bonded magnet, selected from Asada’s teaching, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Asada discloses an intrinsic coercive force of the bonded magnet is more preferably 1150 kA/m or more and a coercive force of less than 1020 kA/m tends to lead to demagnetization during use in applications such as high-power motors ([0049]).
Asada’s intrinsic coercive force of the bonded magnet is overlapping with a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have intrinsic coercive force of the bonded magnet, selected from Asada’s teaching, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention was made, to have Asada’s teaching of the remanence and intrinsic coercive force of the bonded magnet to have a bonded magnet with sufficient remanence to avoid insufficient torque and with higher coercivity to avoid demagnetization during intended application such as high-power motor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi Asada et.al. [US20200211742A1] (Asada hereafter) as applied to claim 12, and in view of Suda Sohichiro, et.al. [WO2020217476A1] (Machine translation) (Sohichiro hereafter).
Regarding claim 15, all the discussions above claim 12 are applicable for claim 15, in addition, Asada discloses the average particle size is defined as the particle size corresponding to the 50th percentile by volume (D50) from the smallest particle size in a particle size distribution ([0016]).
But Asada is silent about D90/D10 in a particle size distribution of the magnetic powder is 4 or less.
However, Sohichiro teaches compounds containing metal powder and resin compositions are used as raw materials for a variety of industrial products depending on the physical properties of the metal powder, for example, the compound is used as a raw material for bonded magnets, and the like ([Section 0002]).
Sohichiro then teaches a median diameter (D50) of the first metal powder is 1.0 μm or more and 5.0 μm or less and such fine metal powder having this D50, the filling rate of the metal filler in the compound tends to be high. The D10 of the first metal powder is 1.08 μm or more and 1.2 μm or less. The D90 of the first metal powder is 3.88 μm or more and 4.43 μm or less. When the D10 or D90 of the first metal powder is within the above range, the filling rate of the metal filler in the compound tends to be high ([Section 0028]). Sohichiro’s metal powder is magnetic powder, and a metal magnet made of an SmFeN based alloy (rare earth magnet) ([Section 0038]).
With these above teachings of Sohichiro, for a minimum value of D10 = 1.08 μm, and D90 = 3.88 μm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a calculated value of D90/D10 in a particle size distribution of the magnetic powder is (3.88/1.08) 3.59 and for a maximum value of D10 = 1.2 μm, and D90 = 4.43 μm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a calculated value of D90/D10 in a particle size distribution of the magnetic powder is (4.43/1.2) 3.69.
Therefore, a calculated D90/D10 in a particle size distribution of the magnetic powder from Sohichiro’s teachings is incorporated within the as recited range of the instant claim.
Sohichiro’s teaching is analogous to the instant claim as well as Asada as Sohichiro is also in the same field of producing a bonded magnet from magnetic particle, specially Sohichiro’s particle size is within the as recited range in the claimed invention and within the same range as disclosed by Asada.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Sohichiro’s teaching of the particle size distribution to modify Yoshida to produce a magnetic powder containing resin composition with higher filling rate of the metal filler in the bonded magnet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738