DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending, and claims 1-10 are currently under review.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
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