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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation that the strength of the applied magnetic field is less than or equal to 2 T. However, claim 2 (which claim 3 is a dependent of) recites the limitation that the strength of the applied magnetic field is between 0.25-9 T. The range recited in claim 3 includes magnetic field strength values of 0-0.25T that claim 2 omits. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter recited in claim 2. For the purpose of examination, claim 3 will be interpreted as further restricting the magnetic field strength range to 0.25-2 T.
Claim 11 recites the limitation that the strength of the applied magnetic field is less than or equal to 2 T. However, claim 10 (which claim 11 is a dependent of) recites the limitation that the strength of the applied magnetic field is between 0.25-9 T. The range recited in claim 11 includes magnetic field strength values of 0-0.25T that claim 10 omits. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter recited in claim 10. For the purpose of examination, claim 11 will be interpreted as further restricting the magnetic field strength range to 0.25-2 T.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guth (US 20140346388 A1) in view of Shafiee (“The Effect of a Magnetic Field on Thermal -Reaction Kinetics of a Paramagnetic Metal Hydride Storage Bed”).
Regarding claim 1, Guth teaches a process for producing a magnetic material from a starting material, where the starting material comprises at least one rare earth metal (RE) and at least one transition metal (TM), which comprises the steps (Abstract, Clm. 1):
hydrogenation of the starting material,
disproportionation of the starting material and formation of a disproportionated phase,
desorption, and
recombination.
A magnetic field is applied during at least one step in the process. Additionally, they teach the application of a magnetic field during at least part of the disproportionation step (i.e. [0058], “...in the equilibrium state between disproportionation 2 and desorption 3/recombination 4”)
While Guth implicitly teaches the application of a magnetic field during both the hydrogenation and disproportionation steps (the combined “HD” step), it does not explicitly exemplify an instance of a magnetic field during both of these steps.
Shafiee studied the effect of an applied magnetic field on a LaNi--5 bed (i.e. a magnetic material comprising a rare earth metal RE and a transition metal TM) during hydrogenation. Overall, Shafiee teaches that the application of an external magnetic field improves the hydrogenation time in a LaNi--5 bed (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to apply a magnetic field during the HD step of Guth’s HDDR method because the application of magnetic field during the HD step enables an advantageous result of improved hydrogenation times during the hydrogenation step, as taught by Shafiee.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Guth teaches an applied magnetic field strength range of 0-100 T (Clm. 4). Additionally, Shafiee conducts their studies with applied field strengths of 2952 and 4667 G (equivalently, 0.2992 and 0.4667 T) (pg. 5 Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Guth teaches that the disproportionation step is conducted at a temperature of 500-900OC in a hydrogen-containing atmosphere [0002]. Guth’s taught temperature range reads on the claimed temperature of art least 600OC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 7, Guth teaches that a magnetic field is also applied during the DR step (Clm. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Guth conducts their HDDR method on a Nd2Fe14B block, which reads on the claimed composition of (RE)2(TM)14X. Additionally, it is noted that Shafiee conducts their studies on LaNi5, which reads on the claimed composition of (RE)(TM)5.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liesert ( “HDDR process of Nd-Fe-B with an excess of intergranular Nd-rich phase under magnetic field”) in view of Shafiee (“The Effect of a Magnetic Field on Thermal -Reaction Kinetics of a Paramagnetic Metal Hydride Storage Bed”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Liesert teaches a method for producing an anisotropic magnetic material using an HDDR process. Liesert’s method comprises the following steps:
A magnetic starting material is subjected to a hydrogenation and a disproportionation step, wherein the magnetic material is treated in a hydrogen-containing atmosphere at 720OC for 1 hr (pg. 367 §2 “Experimental”). The material is then brought to room temperature (Fig. 1)
The material is then subjected to a desorption and recombination step, wherein the material is treated in a vacuum at a temperature of 900OC (pg. 368-369, §3.2 “Application of the HDDR process with an excess of Nd/Cu eutectic”). A magnetic field of 7 T was applied during this step. (pg. 368-369, §3.2 “Application of the HDDR process with an excess of Nd/Cu eutectic”). The material is then brought to room temperature (Fig. 1).
While Liesert is silent on disposing the material in an inert atmosphere before conducting the HD step, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art to so, as it would have provided a well-known and predictable advantage (i.e. removal of unwanted gases that could react with the material during the treatment steps).
However, Liesert does not teach the application of a magnetic field during the HD step.
Shafiee studied the effect of an applied magnetic field on a LaNi--5 bed (i.e. a magnetic material comprising a rare earth metal RE and a transition metal TM) during hydrogenation. Overall, Shafiee teaches that the application of an external magnetic field improves the hydrogenation time in a LaNi--5 bed (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to apply a magnetic field during the HD step of Liesert’s HDDR method because the application of magnetic field during the HD step enables an advantageous result of improved hydrogenation times during the hydrogenation step, as taught by Shafiee.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 10, and 11, Shafiee conducts their studies with applied field strengths of 2952 and 4667 G (equivalently, 0.2992 and 0.4667 T) (pg. 5 Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Liesert applies a magnetic field of 7 T during the DR step.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 13, as discussed above, Liersert conducts their HD at a temperature of 720OC, which is within the claimed temperature ranges.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, as discussed above, Liesert holds their material for 1 hr during the HD step (pg. 367 §2 “Experimental”), which is within the claimed time range.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, Liesert conducts their DR step at a temperature of 900OC, which is greater than their HD step temperature of 720OC.
Regarding claim 16, Liesert conducts their DR step for at least 1 hr (pg. 368-369, §3.2 “Application of the HDDR process with an excess of Nd/Cu eutectic”).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, Liesert cools their material to room temperature after the HD step.
Regarding claims 8 and 18-20, Liesert’s material comprises Nd2Fe14B (Abstract).
Reading claims 21-24, teaches the use of Nd2Fe14B powder in the manufacture of bonded magnets (pg. 365 §1 “Introduction”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights