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 Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s timely election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-2, directed to a method, in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, directed to a magnetizer, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-3 are pending and Claims 1-2 are considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. JP2021-070163, filed April 19, 2021, is acknowledged.
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 Komura (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20080122565 A1) in view of Kou (“Coercivity and magnetic anisotropy of sintered-type permanent magnets”).
Regarding Claim 1, Komura discloses a permanent magnet manufacturing method comprising:
disposing a field magnet part near a to-be-magnetized object, the field magnet part to apply a magnetization magnetic field to the to-be-magnetized object, and
heating the to-be-magnetized object to a temperature equal to or higher than the Curie point of the to-be-magnetized object; and
cooling the to-be-magnetized object having reached the temperature equal to or higher than the Curie point to a temperature lower than the Curie point and continuously applying a magnetization magnetic field to the to-be-magnetized object by the field magnet part (Abstract; para. [0012]-[0013]; Fig. 3A-3B),
wherein the permanent magnets for magnetization are sintered SmCo magnets in a predetermined shape (Fig. 3A, bar-like magnetizing permanent magnets 20; para. [0040]-[0042] and para. [0056], sintered SmCo magnet).
While Kumora discloses using sintered SmCo magnets and also isotropic magnets (para. [0043]-[0044]), Kumora fails to expressly disclose that the sintered SmCo magnet is isotropic.
Kuo teaches wherein isotropic sintered SmCo magnets are conventionally known, and comprise substantially similar coercivities throughout the 200-800K temperature range as the anisotropic SmCo sintered magnet (Pg. 3929, Col. 1, para. 1; Fig. 4; Fig. 5); and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the isotropic SmCo sintered magnet comprises similar thermal stabilities as the anisotropic SmCo sintered magnet, which is a desire of Kumora (see Fig. 1 and para. [0046] of Kumora).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an isotropic sintered SmCo magnet, as taught by Kuo, for the magnetizing permanent magnets and invention of Kumora. One would be motivated to include an isotropic sintered SmCo magnet because Kumora teaches wherein sintered SmCo magnets and isotropic magnets are both suitable as magnetizing permanent magnets, and because Kuo teaches wherein the isotropic sintered SmCo magnet is conventionally known, and is a suitable equivalent to an anisotropic SmCo sintered magnet in terms of thermal stability and coercivities (see teachings above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 2, Kumora discloses wherein the permanent magnets for magnetization are strip-shaped and Kuo discloses isotropic SmCo sintered magnets, which reads on the claimed limitations (Kumora, Fig. 3A and para. [0047], bar-like magnetizing permanent magnets 20; bar-like reads on strip-shaped; Kuo, Pg. 3929, Col. 1, para. 1 – see teachings above in Claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ausserlechner (previously cited, US 20180087926 A1): teaches a ring magnet comprising isotropic, sintered SmCo magnets (para. [0056]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735