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.
Claims 1 and 3 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 uses the term “essentially contains” while referring to the components of the invention. Contains is a synonym with comprising, see MPEP 2111.03(I). It is unclear which components must be included in the invention and which components are not to be included in the invention. The specification does not provide clarity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 states that the magnet comprises “at least 70 atom% of T which is Fe and Co, at least 90 atom% of T being Fe”. 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, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least 70 atom% of T being Fe and Co”, and the claim also recites “at least 90 atom% of T being Fe”, 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.
Claim 3 states that the grain boundary phase further contains a M3 carbide phase, but not a R1.1T4B4 compound phase and a M3 boride phase. It is unclear if the “not” is referring to the R1.1T4B4 compound phase and the M3 boride phase or just the R1.1T4B4 compound phase. This makes it unclear as to whether the M3 boride phase should or should not be included in the invention. The specification does not provide clarity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3179487 of Kamata.
Claim 1 recites an R-T-B sintered magnet comprising a main phase in the form of a R2Fe14B intermetallic compound and a grain boundary phase, wherein the magnet has a composition consisting essentially of 12.5 to 17.0 atom% of R which is at least one element selected from rare earth elements and essentially contains Nd, 4.5 to 5.5 atom% of B, at least 70 atom% of T which is Fe and Co, at least 90 atom% of T being Fe, 0.1 to 3.0 atom% of M1 which is at least one element selected from Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Pd, Ag, Cd, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, and Bi, 0.01 to 0.5 atom% of M2 which is at least one element selected from Si, Ge, In, Sn, and Pb, 0.05 to 1.0 atom% of M3 which is at least one element selected from Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Hf, Ta, and W, and up to 0.8 atom% of O, and the balance of C, N and incidental impurities, the grain boundary phase contains a R-T-(M1, M2) phase having higher R, M1 and M2 concentrations than the main phase, and a R-M2-C phase having higher R and M2 concentrations than the R-T-(M1, M2) phase, and a higher C concentration than the main phase.
Kamata discloses a rare earth-iron-boron based sintered magnet and method for manufacturing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kamata teaches an R value of 12 to 17 atom%, where R is two or more elements selected from rare earth elements including Y and Nd and Pr, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the range for R 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 exist, see MPEP 2144.05.
Kamata also teaches a range of 0.1 to 3.0 atom% M1 where M1 is one or more elements selected from Si, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb and Bi, Para[0016]. M1 of Kamata corresponds to M1 and M2 of the claimed invention. The claimed invention states a range for M1 of 0.1 to 3.0 atom%, and a range for M2 of 0.01 to 0.5 atom%. This means a combined range for M1 + M2 would be 0.11 to 3.5 atom%. This overlaps with the range of 0.1 to 3.0 atom% taught by Kamata, Para[0028]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05.
M3 of the claimed invention corresponds to M2 of Kamata. Kamata teaches a range for M2 of 0.05 to 0.5 atom%, where M2 is at least one from Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Hf, Ta, and W, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the range of 0.05 to 1.0 atom% M3 of the claimed invention, where M3 is at least one element selected from Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Hf, Ta, and W. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05.
Kamata teaches a range of atom% B from 4.8+2*m to 5.9+2*m, where m is the atomic % of M2. Kamata teaches a range for M2 of 0.05 to 0.5 atom%, Para[0016]. This means the lowest possible value for B would be 4.9, corresponding to an m of 0.05, and the largest possible value for B would be 6.9, corresponding to an m of 0.5. This range of 4.9 to 6.9 atom% B overlaps with the 4.5 to 5.5 atom% 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 exist, see MPEP 2144.05.
Kamata teaches 1.5 atom% or less of O and the balance Fe, Para[0020]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges of up to 0.8 atom% O and at least 70 atom% T, which is Fe and Co. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05.
Kamata also teaches that the grain boundary phase may contain an R'-M1 " phase containing at least 50 at% of R' wherein M1 " is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb, and Bi. At the grain boundary triple junction, there are formed an R oxide phase, R carbide phase, R nitride phase, or R oxyfluoride phase of high-melting compound or a mixture of such phases and M2 boride phase, Para[0020]. The R carbide phase in Kamata corresponds to the R-M2-C limitation of claim 1. Thus, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by stating that the content of C is 0.1 to 1.0 atom%.
Kamata teaches carbon in the range of 0.5 atom% or less, Para[0020]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 states that the grain boundary phase further contains a M3 carbide phase, but not a R1.1T4B4 compound phase and a M3 boride phase. It is not clear if the word “not” is referring to the M3 boride phase; see 112(b) above. For the purposes of prior art this will be interpreted as encompassing “not” referring to the M3 boride phase.
Kamata teaches the magnet contains a M2 boride phase at a grain boundary triple junction, but not R 1.1 Fe 4 B 4 compound phase, Para[0015]. M2 of Kamata corresponds to M3 of the claimed invention, Para[0020]. Kamata also discloses that at the grain boundary triple junction, there are formed an R oxide phase, R carbide phase, R nitride phase, or R oxyfluoride phase of high-melting compound or a mixture of such phases and M2 boride phase, Para[0036]. Since the M2 boride phase is optional, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the phase in the grain boundary phase contains 25 to 35 atom% R, 1 to 7 atom% of M1, more than 0 to 5 atom% of M2, and the balance containing T.
Kamata teaches that the grain boundary phase is composed of an amorphous and/or nanocrystalline R'-(Fe,Co)-M1 ' phase consisting essentially of 25 to 35 at% of R', 2 to 8% of M1 ' wherein M1 ' is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb, and Bi, up to 8 at% of Co, and the balance of Fe, Para[0020]. As stated above, M1 of Kamata corresponds to M1 and M2 of the claimed invention. The range for M1 + M2 for claim 4 would be more than 1 to 12 atom%. The ranges claimed for R, and M1 + M2 overlap with the ranges taught in Kamata. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by stating that the atom concentration of M2 divided by the atom concentration of M1 is greater than 0.6 and less than 3.0.
As stated above, M1 of Kamata corresponds to M1 and M2 of the claimed invention. Kamata teaches a concentration of 2 to 8 atom % M1 in the R-T-M1 phase, Para[0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art could select two elements from M1 of Kamata. One element, for example, Al, could be from M1 of the claimed invention, and the other element, for example, Sn, could be from M2 of the claimed invention. Since Kamata teaches that these two elements can be in any combination of amounts as long as the total is in the range of 2 to 8 atom%, Para[0020], one of ordinary skill in the art could select concentrations for M1 and M2 elements that read on the claimed range of 0.6 < [M2]/[M1] < 3.0. For example, a concentration of Al of 2 atom% and a concentration of Sn of 5 atom% would result in an M1 + M2 of 7 atom%. This falls within the range of 2 to 8 atom% taught by Kamata, Para[0020]. The value of [M2]/[M1] in this instance would be 2.5. This falls within the range of 0.6 to 3.0 of the claimed invention. All combinations of M1 and M2 of the claimed invention that would result in a value for [M2]/[M1] in the claimed range are covered by the combinations taught by Kamata, Para[0020]. Therefore, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by stating that M2 contains Sn, and the content of M2 is 0.05 to 0.3 atom%.
As stated above M2 of the claimed invention is included in M1 of Kamata. Sn is included in M1 of Kamata in a range of 0.1 to 3.0 atom%. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by stating that M2 contains Sn, and the grain boundary phase contains a R-Sn-C phase as the R-M2-C phase.
Kamata teaches that the grain boundary phase may contain an R'-M1 " phase containing at least 50 at% of R' wherein M1 " is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb, and Bi. At the grain boundary triple junction, there are formed an R oxide phase, R carbide phase, R nitride phase, or R oxyfluoride phase of high-melting compound or a mixture of such phases and M2 boride phase, Para[0020]. The R-Carbide taught in Kamata corresponds to the R-M2-C phase of claim 7. Therefore, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by stating that the R-M2-C phase is a R-(M1)M2-C phase further containing element M1, the R-(M1)M2-C phase having a higher M1 concentration than the M1 concentration in the main phase grains.
Kamata teaches that the grain boundary phase may contain an R'-M1 " phase containing at least 50 at% of R' wherein M1 " is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb, and Bi. At the grain boundary triple junction, there are formed an R oxide phase, R carbide phase, R nitride phase, or R oxyfluoride phase of high-melting compound or a mixture of such phases and M2 boride phase, Para[0020]. The R-Carbide taught in Kamata corresponds to the R-M2-C phase of claim 8. Kamata teaches a concentration of 0.1 to 3.0 atom% M1 overall, Para[0028], and a concentration of M1 in the grain boundary phase of 2 to 8 atom%, Para[0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art could select an amount of M1 in the grain boundary phase that is greater than the overall concentration of M1. In instances where the concentration of M1 in the grain boundary phase is higher than the overall concentration of M-1, the concentration of M1 in the grain boundary phase must be greater than the concentration of M1 in the main phase. As stated above, M1 of Kamata corresponds to M1 and M2 of claim 8. Therefore, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by stating that the magnet has an average grain size D50 of 1.2 to 4.0 µm, calculated as the area average of equivalent circle diameters of main phase grains in a cross section parallel to the orientation direction of the R-T-B sintered magnet.
Kamata teaches that the magnet has an average crystal grain size of up to 6 µm, preferably 1.5 to 5.5 µm, Para[0043]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist, see MPEP 2144.05. Kamata also teaches that the cross-sectional area of individual grains is determined, from which the diameter of an equivalent circle is computed, Para[0043]. Therefore, Kamata reads on all limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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