DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending, and claims 1-10 and 15-17 are currently under review.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 15-17 are newly added.
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
The amendment filed 6/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and newly submitted claim(s) 15-17 remain(s) pending in the application.
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 17 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 17 recites the term “needle-like” which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular shape is required by the claim scope. The addition of the word “like” is also similar in scope to the recitation of “needle-type”, which extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). It is unclear, for example, whether “needle-like” requires some particular shape or ratios/dimensions, or whether any elongated shape can meet the limitation of “needle-like”, something else entirely. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any shape that can reasonably considered to be like a needle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guillou et al. (2019, Room temperature magnetic anisotropy in Fe2P-type transition metal based alloys).
Regarding claims 1-3, Guillou et al. discloses a magnet having a composition of Fe1.8Co0.2P1-ySiy with y having values of 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, etc. [p.406, fig.4-5]. The examiner notes that these compositions fall within and anticipate the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill would further recognize the magnet of Guillou et al. to be hard magnet based on the disclosed magnetic properties and anticipatory composition of Guillou et al. Guillou et al. further teaches a nearly single phase structure, which reasonably meets the limitation of “exhibiting” a single phase as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. further teaches a saturation magnetization at room temperature (ie. approximately 293 K) µ0Ms is about 0.9T, which meets the claimed range [p.411].
Regarding claim 6, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. further teaches a magnetic anisotropy at room temperature (ie. approximately 293 K) of about 0.9 Mjm^-3, which meets the claimed range [abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. further teaches obtaining a curie temperature of at least 640 K, which meets the claimed range [abstract].
Regarding claims 8-10, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. does not expressly teach a hardness parameter, compositional change in HCl, or first order transition parameter as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would understand that these are intrinsic properties which merely depend upon the magnetic alloy composition. See MPEP 2112. This is further supported by applicant’s own specification which teaches that the claimed properties are achieved by meeting the claimed composition [0035, 0037-0038 instant spec]. Since Guillou et al. discloses an anticipatory composition, one of ordinary skill would have expected identical ranges of properties to naturally flow.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillou et al. (2019, Room temperature magnetic anisotropy in Fe2P-type transition metal based alloys).
Regarding claims 1-4, Guillou et al. discloses a magnet having a composition of Fe2-zCozP1-ySiy with z ranging from 0 to 0.3 and y ranging from 0 to 0.6 [abstract, p.404, p.406, fig.4-5]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the compositional ranges of Guillou et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill would further recognize the magnet of Guillou et al. to be hard magnet based on the disclosed properties of Guillou et al. Guillou et al. further teaches a nearly single phase structure, which reasonably meets the limitation of “exhibiting” a single phase as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. further teaches a saturation magnetization at room temperature (ie. approximately 293 K) µ0Ms is about 0.9T, which meets the claimed range [p.411].
Regarding claim 6, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. further teaches a magnetic anisotropy at room temperature (ie. approximately 293 K) of about 0.9 Mjm^-3, which meets the claimed range [abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. further teaches obtaining a curie temperature of at least 640 K, which meets the claimed range [abstract].
Regarding claims 8-10, Guillou et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Guillou et al. does not expressly teach a hardness parameter, compositional change in HCl, or first order transition parameter as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would understand that these are intrinsic properties which merely depend upon the magnetic alloy composition. See MPEP 2112. This is further supported by applicant’s own specification which teaches that the claimed properties are achieved by meeting the claimed composition [0035, 0037-0038 instant spec]. Since Guillou et al. discloses a substantially similar, overlapping composition, one of ordinary skill would have expected substantially similar, overlapping ranges of properties relative to those as claimed to naturally flow.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wautelet et al. (1977, Mossbauer study of the magnetic properties of Fe2-xMxP1-yAsy).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 15, Wautelet et al. discloses a magnet having a compositional formula of Fe2-xMxP1-yAsy with M being Co among others, x ranging from 0 to 2, and y ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 as determined by the examiner [abstract, p.32-33]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the compositional ranges of Wautelet et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill would further recognize the magnet of Wautelet et al. to be hard magnet based on the disclosed properties of Wautelet et al. and furthermore because Wautelet expressly teaches a ferromagnet [p.32]. Wautelet et al. further teaches the presence of only one crystal phase, which meets the limitation of “consisting of a single crystal phase” as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6, Wautelet et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wautelet et al. does not expressly teach a saturation magnetization or anisotropy as claimed. However, the examiner notes that these properties would naturally depend upon magnet alloy composition as recognized by one of ordinary skill. Since Wautelet et al. discloses an overlapping composition as shown above, overlapping values of saturation magnetization or anisotropy would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Wautelet et al. discloses the material of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). Wautelet et al. further teaches obtaining curie temperatures of up to 573 K, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [p.32]. As stated above, Wautelet et al. does not expressly teach an anisotropy as claimed. However, the examiner notes that these properties would naturally depend upon magnet alloy composition as recognized by one of ordinary skill. Since Wautelet et al. discloses an overlapping composition as shown above, overlapping values of anisotropy would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 8-10, Wautelet et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wautelet et al. does not expressly teach a hardness parameter, compositional change in HCl, or first order transition parameter as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would understand that these are intrinsic properties which merely depend upon the magnetic alloy composition. See MPEP 2112. This is further supported by applicant’s own specification which teaches that the claimed properties are achieved by meeting the claimed composition [0035, 0037-0038 instant spec]. Since Wautelet et al. discloses a substantially similar, overlapping composition, one of ordinary skill would have expected substantially similar, overlapping ranges of properties relative to those as claimed to naturally flow.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wautelet et al. (1977, Mossbauer study of the magnetic properties of Fe2-xMxP1-yAsy) in view of Bruck et al. (US 2004/0250550).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Wautelet et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Wautelet et al. does not expressly teach an inclusion of Si as claimed. Bruck et al. discloses a similar magnet material (AyB1-y)2C1-xDx, wherein A and B can be Co and Fe respectively, and wherein C and D can be any combination including P, As, and Si among others [claim1]. In other words, As and Si are disclosed by Bruck et al. to be art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose of magnetic alloying elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the As of Wautelet et al. to be Si because As and Si are disclosed by Bruck et al. to be art-recognized equivalent alloying elements. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) & MPEP 2144.06. The examiner notes that the overlap between the ranges of Wautelet et al. or Bruck et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wautelet et al. (1977, Mossbauer study of the magnetic properties of Fe2-xMxP1-yAsy) in view of Robbrecht et al. (1977, Magnetic properties of Fe2P) and/or Caron et al. (2013, Magnetocrystalline anisotropy and the magnetocaloric effect in Fe2P).
Regarding claim 17, Wautelet et al. discloses the material of claim 15 (see previous). Wautelet et al. does not expressly teach needle-like crystal phases as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this feature would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Specifically, the manufacture of magnetic Fe2P powders having a lath, needle shape is well-known in the art as performed by Robbrecht et al. [p.425] and Caron et al. [p.2]. Thus, all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the specific magnetic composition of Wautelet et al. by obtaining said magnetic composition of Wautelet et al. in a common, well-known, and handleable form of a needle-shaped powder as taught by Robbrecht et al. and/or Caron et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/01/2026 regarding the rejections over Guillou et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guillou et al. requires secondary phases and therefore does not meet the limitation of “exhibiting a single crystal phase” as claimed. The examiner cannot concur. Guillou et al. expressly teaches a nearly single phase magnet as explained above, which meets the claimed limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant then argues that Guillou et al. does not teach a hard magnet. The examiner cannot concur. Firstly, Guillou et al. discloses overlapping magnetic properties as stated above, which reasonably meets the limitation of a hard magnet. Although Guillou et al. does indeed admit that samples are not “considered as permanent magnets” in [p.410], this disclosure is made only in relationship to coercivity values, and furthermore Guillou et al. further teaches that permanent magnets can still be obtained [p.410 col.2].
Applicant then argues that Guillou et al. only teaches a maximum magnetic anisotropy of 0.45 MJm-3. The examiner cannot concur. Firstly, this still overlaps with the claimed range of 0.4 or greater in claim 6. Secondly, Guillou et al. does not disclose a maximum value of 0.45 Mjm-3, but rather teaches other values of up to approximately 0.9 for example [p.410, fig.9].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights