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 .
Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-2 in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Sekino fails to teach or suggest the shell layer having a thickness of 0.1-6 µm, and the Nd-rich phase comprises a R6Fe13B phase, wherein the R is one or more selected from the group consisting of Nd, Pr, Dy and Tb and this property would not flow from the substantially identical methods as claim 3 requires where the mass of the main alloy sheet accounts for 82% or more and less than 100% of the total mass of the main alloy sheet and the auxiliary sheet and that the broad ranges in Sekino does not demonstrate that the same method is applied to the same materials (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3 last paragraph – pg. 4 2nd paragraph). This is not found persuasive because Sekino discloses where a ratio of the second powder to the blended powder is in a range of 1 to 30 wt % (Sekino, claim 2) and as Sekino discloses overlapping ranges for the composition and discloses a substantially identical method with an overlapping ratio of the two materials, it would be expected to have substantially identical properties.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/26/26.
As such, claims 1-2 are examined in this office action of which claims 1-2 were amended in the preliminary amendment dated 8/15/23.
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 1-2 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 1 recites the limitation “Nd-rich phase” in line 2. The term “rich” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich” 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. It is not clear whether this refers to a specific percentage concentration which makes the phase “Nd-rich”, whether this is in comparison to some other region, or some other meaning. Claim 2 is also rejected as it depends from claim 1 and does not solve the above issue.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the shell layer has a thickness of 0.1-5 µm, preferably 0.1-5 µm,”. It is not clear what is meant by repeating the thickness range with the word “preferably”. It is not clear if this requires some narrower thickness than 0.1-5 µm or not.
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 2 recites the broad recitation the shell layer accounts for 30%-60% by volume, and the claim also recites preferably 45-56% by volume, such as 45.7% by volume, 50.3% by volume, 50.78% by volume or 52.7% by volume of the neodymium-iron-boron magnet which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Also, claim 2 recites the broad recitation thickness of 0.1-5 , and the claim also recites more preferably 0.1-4 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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103426578 B with reference to the English machine translation of Deng.
As to claims 1-2, it is not clear what is meant by “Nd-rich”, nor what the claimed ranges are in claim 2 which use broad and narrow ranges, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, these will be interpreted as requiring some amount of Nd in the phase and claim 2 will use the broadest ranges.
Deng discloses a rare earth permanent magnet material and its preparation method (Deng, paragraph [0002]). Deng discloses a rare earth permanent magnet, which includes a main phase with a tetragonal crystal structure and an auxiliary phase with a face-centered cubic structure, wherein the auxiliary phase is isolated from or covers the main phase (Deng, paragraph [0009]), reading upon a main phase crystal grain. Deng discloses where the addition of heavy rare earth elements Dy and/or Tb more effectively enables the formation of a main phase crystal in the outer layer of the crystal as Dy2Fe14B or/and Tb2Fe14B (Deng, paragraph [0027]) reading upon where the shell layer comprises (Nd/Dy)2Fe14B and/or (Nd/Tb)2Fe14B. Deng discloses where the main phase is composed of Pr and/or Nd present in an amount of 16 to 35.99 wt%; a second rare earth selected from at least one of Dy, Tb, and Ho in an amount of 0.01 to 10 wt%; B in an amount of 0.8 to 1.2 wt%; one or more of Zr, Ga, Cu, Nb, Sn, Mo, Al, V, W, Si, Hf, and Ti in an amount of 0 to 1.5 wt%; and Fe as balance (Deng, paragraph [0010]).
Deng discloses where the auxiliary phase is composed of at least one of Pr, Nd, Dy, and Tb in an amount of 15 to 64.99 wt%; Ho in an amount of 0.01 to 20 wt%; Co in an amount of 0 to 35 wt%; B in an amount of 0 to 1.2 wt%; one or more of Zr, Ga, Cu, Nb, Sn, Mo, Al, V, W, Si, Hf, and Ti in an amount of 0 to 25 wt%, and balance Fe (Deng, paragraph [0011]). These overlap the claimed composition for the main phase crystal grans and the Nd-rich phase. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed composition over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches high coercivity of the magnet (Deng, paragraph [0016]) throughout the disclosed ranges. 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.
However, Deng does not explicitly disclose a Nd-rich phase adjacent to the main phase crystal grain where the Nd-rich phase comprises a R6Fe13B phase, wherein the R is one or more selected from the group consisting of Nd, Pr, Dy and Tb and where the shell layer has a thickness of 0.1-6 µm. Deng also does not disclose the claim 2 properties where the shell layer has a thickness of 0.1-5 µm, preferably 0.1-5 µm, more preferably 0.1-4 µm; and/or the shell layer accounts for 30%-60% by volume, preferably 45-56% by volume, such as 45.7% by volume, 50.3% by volume, 50.78% by volume or 52.7% by volume of the neodymium-iron-boron magnet; and/or the Nd-rich phase further comprises ZrB2 and/or TiB2; and/or the Nd-rich phase further comprises a first grain boundary phase comprising Fe, T and B, wherein T is Zr and/or Ti; and/or the Nd-rich phase further comprises a second grain boundary phase comprising Nd, Ga, Al, Fe and Dy.
However, Deng discloses the same starting materials of the main phase and auxiliary phase and applies the same method of first mixing the main phase ingot or rapidly solidified flake and the auxiliary phase ingot or rapidly solidified flake, and then crushing and pulverizing them together using hydrogen crushing (Deng, paragraph [0036]-[0037]), followed by pressing in a magnetic field orientation forming press in a constant or pulsed magnetic field (Deng, paragraph [0041]) and finally sintered in a sintering furnace (Deng, paragraph [0041]) where the auxiliary phase is 0-20 wt% of the magnet (Deng, paragraph [0027]). This matches the disclosed method in instant claim 3 and pg. 3 line 8 - pg. 3, line 30 of the specification of preparing a main alloy sheet and an auxiliary alloy sheet respectively; wherein, the raw material for the main alloy sheet comprises LH1, RH1, X1, Y1, Fe and B; the LH1 is Nd or a PrNd alloy; the RH1 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Tb, Dy, Ho and Gd; the X1 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr and Nb; and the Y1 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Al, Cu, Ga and Co; in the raw material for the main alloy sheet, the LH1 accounts for 25-27.5% by mass of the main alloy sheet, the RH1 accounts for 0-10% by mass of the main alloy sheet, the X1 accounts for 0.05-0.6% by mass of the main alloy sheet, and the Y1 accounts for 0.05-3.5% by mass of the main alloy sheet, wherein the sum of the mass percentages of respective elements in the main alloy sheet is 100%; the raw material for the auxiliary alloy sheet comprises RH2, X2 and Fe; the RH2 is Tb and/or Dy, and the X2 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr and Nb; in raw material for the auxiliary alloy sheet, the RH2 accounts for 10-85% by mass of the auxiliary alloy sheet, and the X2 accounts for 0-8% by mass of the auxiliary alloy sheet, wherein the sum of the mass percentages of respective elements in the auxiliary alloy sheet is 100%; S2: subjecting a mixture, which is obtained by hydrogen decrepitating or pulverizing the main alloy sheet and the auxiliary alloy sheet. Thus, the substantially same method applied to the patentably indistinct starting material would be expected to exhibit the same properties of a Nd-rich phase adjacent to the main phase crystal grain where the Nd-rich phase comprises a R6Fe13B phase, wherein the R is one or more selected from the group consisting of Nd, Pr, Dy and Tb and where the shell layer has a thickness of 0.1-6 µm as well as the claim 2 properties where the shell layer has a thickness of 0.1-5 µm, more preferably 0.1-4 µm; and/or the shell layer accounts for 30%-60% by volume, preferably 45-56% by volume, such as 45.7% by volume, 50.3% by volume, 50.78% by volume or 52.7% by volume of the neodymium-iron-boron magnet; and/or the Nd-rich phase further comprises ZrB2 and/or TiB2; and/or the Nd-rich phase further comprises a first grain boundary phase comprising Fe, T and B, wherein T is Zr and/or Ti; and/or the Nd-rich phase further comprises a second grain boundary phase comprising Nd, Ga, Al, Fe and Dy. “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) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights