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 and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 3, 2026, is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended and Claim 4 is newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claim 3 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, directed to a magnetizer, there being no allowable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. Applicant timely elected without traverse in the reply filed on January 27, 2026.
Examiner notes it is unclear if Claim 3 is cancelled or not, as the text for Claim 3 does not appear on the most recently filed claims.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and Claims 1-2 and 4 are considered in this office action.
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”) and Mayer (US 3176278 A).
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).
Komura is silent towards pre-heating below the Curie temperature.
Mayer teachers preheating below the Curie temperature in order to only need an incremental supply of heating above the critical point and thereby compensate for small differences in Curie temperatures of slightly different compositions (Col. 1, line 50-Col. 2, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preheated the below the Curie temperature, as taught by Mayer, for the invention disclosed by Komura, in order to only need an incremental supply of heating above the critical point and thereby compensate for small differences in Curie temperatures of slightly different compositions (see teaching above).
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).
Claim 4 is 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”) and Mayer (US 3176278 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Avanesov (US 20210391106 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Komura discloses wherein cooling may be air cooling or forced cooling by ejecting gas (para. [0047]), but does not expressly disclosed if ejecting gas is performed by an air cooling fan or a compressor that supplies compressed air.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that forced cooling by the ejection of gas would require a compressor that supplies compressed air.
Further, Avanesov teaches forced air cooling for a permanent magnet undergoing magnetization by means of a fan (para. [0061]).
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 forced air cooling with a fan, as taught by Avanesov, for the invention disclosed by Komura, in order to properly cool the magnet by forced air cooling, as desired by Komura (see teaching by Avanesov above),
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 3, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Komura in view of Kou, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the process and requiring preheating. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Komura in view of Kou and Mayer, as detailed above.
Regarding Komura:
Applicant argues that Komura teaches away from preheating because Komura discloses wherein high frequency heating is preferable.
This argument is not found persuasive.
High frequency heating to heat as fast as possible, as argued by Applicant, would relate to heating rate, and would not impact a step of preheating. Preheating and high frequency heating are not mutually exclusive. Additionally, Komura also discloses wherein heating may also be resistance heating and other heating means. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123.I&II).
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]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights