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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11-19 are pending. Claims 6-7, and 10 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I directed to an R-T-B based permanent magnet material, now recited in claims 1-5 and 11-15 in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant believes that searching and examination of all pending claims do not constitute a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the elected and non-elected inventions have separate classifications which shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. The elected and non-elected inventions additionally have separate fields of search such that a thorough search for the elected structure is not likely to yield references pertinent to molding, chemical composition of powder, or sintering conditions required of a search for the non-elected method. See MPEP 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-9 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 4, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 claims “an R-M-O rich phase is present at a grain boundary triple point of the permanent magnet material”. Claim 1 further claims “the sum of the mass percentages of the M and the oxygen is not less than 20%”. As claim 1 sets forth a minimum composition requirement for both O and M at the triple point, a R-M-O rich phase will be interpreted as a grain boundary triple point which meets the O and M composition limitations. This statement of claim interpretation is necessary in order to avoid misinterpreting “R-M-O rich phase” as an indefinite relative term.
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 1-5, and 11-15 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 “low-melting-point metal element” in claim 1 line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-melting-point metal element” 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 present disclosure provides non-limiting examples on what may be considered a low-melting, but these non-limiting examples do not amount to a definition, and it is not clear how low a melting-point must be in order to be considered a low-melting point metal element. The temperature limitations recited in dependent claim 2 would have sufficiently define what is or is not considered a low-melting point metal element, if claim 2 did not explicitly identify metal elements which do not meet such temperature conditions as low-melting metal elements.
Claim 1 claims “M is one or more selected from a transition metal element, a low-melting-point metal element, a non-metal element, and a light rare earth element”. Claim 1 also claims “an R-M-O rich phase is present at a grain boundary triple point”. As both R and M are open to light rare earth metals (Nd, Pr), Fe is a transition metal, and B is a non-metal element, it is not clear whether or not M is open to Nd, Pr, Fe, and B, and particularly if a Nd-O phase can meet the R-M-O phase. Further clarification is particularly necessary because the closest the present specification provides to numerical values for the composition in the grain boundary triple point is the description of Fig. 3 on page 14, which gives an amount of Cu and an amount of O for one example but does not explain how elements such as Nd and B are considered in the amount of M or composition of grain boundary tiple point. There are no numerical examples presented when M is Nd or B which delineate Nd and B in M from Nd and B introduced as the main R-T-B material. It cannot be determined, in view of the specification which structure is or is not encompassed by M, particularly by M in the triple point or two-crystal grain boundary regions.
Claim 2 claims “the low-melting-point metal element is a metal having a melting point not more than 1300°C, and is one or more selected from copper (Cu), gallium (Ga), aluminum (Al), zirconium (Zr), titanium (Ti), tin (Sn), and manganese (Mn)”. Zirconium has a melting point of 1852°C, and titanium has a melting point of 1660°C. Claim 2 claims a “low-melting-point metal element” not low-melting-point metal alloy. As claim 2 claims a metal having a melting point not more than 1300°C, yet also claims that titanium or zirconium as such a low-melting-point metal element, it is not clear what is or is not a low-melting-point metal element in view of the specification.
Claims 2-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa (JP2005159053A). Nishizawa is cited in the IDS filed April 30, 2026. References to Nishizawa are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Nishizawa discloses an R-T-B based permanent magnet material [0001], [0008]. Nishizawa discloses that the R is one or more of Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Yb and Lu [0008, emphasis added to elements recited for R in present claim 1], and Nishizawa discloses that it is desirable to select Nd, Pr, and Dy as R [0009]. Nishizawa discloses that T comprises at least iron (Fe) ([0001], [0018], claim 1). Nishizawa discloses that the B is boron [0010]. Nishizawa discloses that the permanent magnet material further comprises Al (a low melting-point metal), Co (a transition metal), Cu (both a transition metal and a low-melting point metal), carbon or nitrogen (non-metal elements), Eu, Gd (light rare earth elements), or B (a non-metal element) [0006], [0011-13], [0015-16]. Nishizawa discloses adding Eu, Gd, B, or Cu as separate oxide powder ([0006], [0021-22], [0030], [0034-35], Table 2). Nishikawa discloses that the magnetic material comprises O [0014] and a balance of Fe and impurities (claim 1, [0006]).
Nishizawa discloses that the magnet material comprises grains [0006-07], [0022], which necessitates grain boundaries and grain boundary triple points, but Nishikawa is silent on the grain boundary phases and elemental distribution. The grain boundary phases which form and elemental distributions thereof are material properties which are inseparable from the chemical composition of the material and process of making the material. See MPEP2112.01(II). When the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP.2112.01(I). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer See MPEP2112(I). Nishikawa discloses that the magnet material is formed from R: 27.5-32 wt.%; B: 0.9-1.2 wt.%, Al: 0.05-0.3 wt.%, Co: 3.0 wt.% or less, Cu: 0.02-1.2 wt.%, O: 300-1500 ppm, C: 200-1300 ppm, N: 200-1500 ppm, and the balance substantially Fe, and M-oxide powder added in a range of 0.05-0.5wt % (claim 1, [0006], [0011-16], [0021]), which substantially overlaps/encompasses the compositions disclosed and exemplified in the present disclosure. Nishikawa discloses adding M materials as separate M-oxide powder (x-oxide [0006], [0021-22], Table 2), and the description of figures 3 and 4 on page 14 of the present disclosure attributes the presence of M-containing phases to the addition of M-oxides powder. Nishizawa discloses embodiments wherein adding the M-oxide powder to the magnetic material occurs before coarse pulverization [0021]; Nishizawa discloses hydrogen decrepitation as the coarse pulverization mechanism [0019], and page 16 of the present specification attribute oxygen distribution to adding oxide powder prior to hydrogen decrepitation. Considering the chemical composition disclosed by Nishizawa (claim 1, [0006], [0011-16], [0021]), Nishizawa’s disclosure of separately adding M-oxide ([0006], [0021-22], Table 2), and considering Nishizawa discloses embodiments of adding M-oxide prior to hydrogen decrepitation [0019], [0021], Nishizawa establishes a sound basis for believing that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at some M oxide present in a grain boundary phase of the permanent magnet material; wherein an R-M-O rich phase is present at a grain boundary triple point of the permanent magnet material; wherein at the grain boundary triple point of the permanent magnet material, the sum of the mass percentages of the M and the oxygen overlaps, encompasses or approaches a range which is not less than 20%; wherein the ratio of the mass percentages of the O at the grain boundary triple point to the O at a two-crystal grain boundary, of the permanent magnet material, encompasses, overlaps or approaches a range of not less than 1.5. The present disclosure reaffirms the basis for such belief in that every embodiment wherein M-oxide is separately added appears to meet the grain boundary phase and element distribution limitations, specifically recited in independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Nishizawa discloses embodiments wherein M is Cu (claim 1, [0006], Table 2), which is a low melting-point metal recited in claim 2 and an option recited in claim 12. Nishizawa discloses embodiments wherein M is Eu or Gd (claim 1, [0006], Table 2), which meets light rare earth options recited in claim 2. Note that claim 2 does not set forth additional limitations for transition metal and non-metal element alternatives for M, and claim 14, which depends on claim 2, recites V (a transition metal which is not a low-melting point metal) and B (a non-metal) for M. Nishizawa’s disclosure as B for M (claim 1, [0006], Table 2), therefore meets the additional limitations of both claim 2 and claim 12.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Nishizawa discloses magnet material is formed from R: 27.5-32 wt.%; B: 0.9-1.2 wt.%, Al: 0.05-0.3 wt.%, Co: 3.0 wt.% or less, Cu: 0.02-1.2 wt.%, O: 300-1500 ppm, C: 200-1300 ppm, N: 200-1500 ppm, and the balance substantially Fe, and M-oxide powder added in a range of 0.05-0.5wt %, based on the mass of the permanent magnet material, wherein the M-oxide is Eu2O3, Gd2O3, B2O3, Cu2O (claim 1, [0006], [0011-16], [0021]). The amount for R and B disclosed by Nishizawa (claim 1, [0006], [0011-16]), overlap those recited in claim 3. The amount of M, as how M appears to be interpreted within claim 3, as disclosed by Nishizawa ranges from 0.087 wt% (Al:0.05%, Cu: 0.02%, B:0.017% from 31.1% of 0.05%) to 1.93 % (Al: 0.3%, Cu: 1.2%, Gd: 0.43% from 86.76% of 0.5%), which overlaps a range of M is not less than 0.1% and not more than 4.0% (recited in present claim 3) and not less than 0.15% and not more than 2.5%, based on the mass of the permanent magnet material (recited in present claim 13) encompasses a range of. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Nishizawa discloses magnet material is formed from O: 300-1500 ppm, with additional oxygen added from M-oxide powder added in a range of 0.05-0.5 wt.%, based on the mass of the permanent magnet material, wherein the M-oxide is Eu2O3, Gd2O3, B2O3, Cu2O (claim 1, [0006], [0014], [0021-22]). 0.05-0.5 wt.% is 500-5000 ppm, and only a portion of the M-oxide disclosed by Nishizawa is oxygen (Table 2). The amounts of oxygen disclosed by Nishizawa (claim 1, [0006], [0014], [0021-22]) encompass values recited in claims 4 and 11. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa is silent on the grain boundary phases and elemental distribution in a grain boundary triple point. The grain boundary phases which form, including grain boundary triple points, and elemental distributions therein are material properties which are inseparable from the chemical composition of the material and process of making the material. See MPEP2112.01(II). When the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP.2112.01(I). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer See MPEP2112(I). Nishikawa discloses that the magnet material is formed from R: 27.5-32 wt.%; B: 0.9-1.2 wt.%, Al: 0.05-0.3 wt.%, Co: 3.0 wt.% or less, Cu: 0.02-1.2 wt.%, O: 300-1500 ppm, C: 200-1300 ppm, N: 200-1500 ppm, and the balance substantially Fe, and M-oxide powder added in a range of 0.05-0.5wt % (claim 1, [0006], [0011-16], [0021]), which substantially overlaps/encompasses the compositions disclosed and exemplified in the present disclosure. Nishikawa discloses adding M materials as separate M-oxide powder (x-oxide [0006], [0021-22], Table 2), and the description of figures on page 14 of the present disclosure attributes the presence of M-containing phases to the addition of M-oxides powder. Nishizawa discloses embodiments wherein adding the M-oxide powder to the magnetic material occurs before coarse pulverization [0021]; Nishizawa discloses hydrogen decrepitation as the coarse pulverization mechanism [0019], and page 16 of the present specification attribute oxygen distribution to adding oxide powder prior to hydrogen decrepitation. Considering the chemical composition disclosed by Nishizawa (claim 1, [0006], [0011-16], [0021]), Nishizawa’s disclosure of separately adding M-oxide ([0006], [0021-22], Table 2), and considering Nishizawa discloses embodiments of adding M-oxide prior to hydrogen decrepitation [0019], [0021], Nishizawa establishes a sound basis for believing that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a sum of the mass percentages of the M and the oxygen which overlaps, encompasses or approaches a range which is not less than 40% at some grain boundary triple point. The present disclosure reaffirms the basis for such belief in that the only example of a sum of M and O which is not less than 40% appears to be that of Fig. 3, and in describing Fig. 3, the present disclosure attributes the distribution to the separate addition of M-oxide particles on page 14 of the present disclosure. Nishizawa discloses adding the M-oxide particles separately [0006], [0021-22].
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Nishizawa discloses preparing the magnetic material comprises Co, and the mass percentage of the Co is 3.0 wt.% or less, but not including 0, based on the mass of the permanent magnet material (claim 1, [0006], [0012]), which encompasses a range not less than 0% and not more than 0.7%, recited in present claim 14 and encompasses a range of not less than 0.1% and not more than 0.5%, recited in present claim 15. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (US20130271249) discloses an R-T-B based permanent magnet material [0001-02], [0011-12]. Suzuki discloses that the R is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu. Preferably, the rare-earth element R is at least one kind of Nd and Pr in particular [0032]. Suzuki discloses that the T comprises at least iron (Fe) [0032]. Suzuki discloses that the B is boron [0032].Suzuki discloses that the magnet material comprises elements which meet the claimed M, particularly Cu [0032], [0040]. Suzuki identifies the grain boundary triple and the grain boundary triple point as respective phases [0070-71]. Table 3 of Suzuki shows that O, Nd, Ga, and Cu are more concentrated in the grain boundary triple point than in the the two-crystal grain boundary.
CN103996520A discloses an R-T-B type magnetic material wherein fine oxide powder is added to a melt of the magnet material composition prior to forming particles by hydrogen decrepitation. The reference discloses the mechanism by which oxide refines grains is through a Nd2O3 phase which forms at grain boundary junctions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights