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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10 to 23 in the reply filed on 5/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Instant claim 10 recites the limitation “preparing a SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder before dispersion” which later leads to the confusingly worded limitation “dispersing the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder before dispersion.” To avoid confusion, the limitation “a SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder before dispersion” should be referred to by another term, such as “a preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder,” which would lead to the clearer language of “preparing a preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder,” and “dispersing the preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic powder.”
The phrase “SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder before dispersion” in claims 13, 15 and 18 should likewise be changed to another term, such as “preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 10-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2006269937-A to Ihara et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of JP-55055440-A to Ishida et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Ihara discloses a method of producing a SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder, comprising: preparing a preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder containing Sm, Fe, and N; and dispersing the preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder using a dispersion apparatus (Ihara, para [0020-0048]).
Regarding the limitations “using resin-coated metal media or resin-coated ceramic media in a dispersion apparatus to obtain the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder” (instant claim 10) and “using resin-coated metal media to obtain a SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder, wherein the resin-coated metal media includes a metal core, and wherein a material of the metal core include at least one selected from the group consisting of iron, chromium steel, stainless steel, and steel” (instant claim 15), Ihara discloses that dispersion may be accomplished in a ball mill or vibrating ball mill, but that caution is necessary as this may cause the raw material particles to break down, leading to a decrease in magnetic properties (Ihara, para [0026]). Ihara is silent as to a resin coating for the balls of said ball mill.
Ishida discloses that when dispersing magnetic powder in a ball mill using steel or stainless steel balls, degradation of magnetic properties via collision stress of the magnetic powder may be alleviated by coating the steel or stainless steel balls of the ball mill with a resin which will in turn improve the magnetic properties of the dispersed magnetic powder (Ishida, para [0002]).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ resin-coated steel or stainless steel as the balls in the ball mill or Ihara as suggested by Ishida. The motivation for doing would be to alleviate degradation of magnetic properties via collision stress of the magnetic powder by coating the steel or stainless steel balls of the ball mill with a resin which will in turn improve the magnetic properties of the dispersed magnetic powder (Ishida, para [0002]).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Examiner takes official notice that steel and stainless steel have a specific gravity of more than 4.
Regarding claim 12 and 17, Ihara discloses that adding a solvent to make the process a wet process is optional and not required (Ihara, para [0026])
Regarding claim 13 and 18, Ihara discloses the procedure of preparing the preliminary SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder includes: heat treating an oxide containing Sm and Fe in a reducing gas-containing atmosphere to obtain a partial oxide; heat treating the partial oxide in the presence of a reducing agent to obtain alloy particles; nitriding the alloy particles to obtain a nitride; and washing the nitride to obtain the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder before dispersion (Ihara, para [0020-0048]).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Ihara discloses that the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder further contains one or more rare earth elements (Ihara, para [0020]). One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage the specific species of La from the disclosed genus of Ihara of rare earth elements, especially given that half of the rare earth elements are referred to as lanthanides.
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Ihara discloses mixing the SmFeN-based anisotropic magnetic powder with a resin to form a bonded magnet (Ihara, para [0030]).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2006269937-A to Ihara et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of JP-55055440-A to Ishida et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 10-20 and 22 above, and further in view of JP-11144928-A to Hamada et al.
Ihara in view of Ishida discloses a method as set forth above.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Ihara discloses that polyphenylene sulfide resin is recognized as a conventional resin for forming bonded magnets (Ihara, para [0002-0005]).
Hamada discloses that the drawbacks of conventional polyphenylene sulfide resin-bonded magnets can be overcome by using a polyphenylene sulfide resin wherein the Na element in the terminal group of the polyphenylene sulfide resin is substituted with the H element in order to provide superior moldability and magnetic properties (Hamada, para [0004-0007]).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a polyphenylene sulfide resin wherein the Na element in the terminal group of the polyphenylene sulfide resin is substituted with the H element as the resin of Ihara as suggested by Hamada. The motivation for doing so would be to provide superior moldability and magnetic properties (Hamada, para [0004-0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights