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 of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/24/2026.
Priority
Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are multiple images in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(1). The instant specification recites for Figure 2, for example, “each of these figures includes, ordered from left to right, a Nd mapping image, a Tb mapping image, an Fe mapping image, a Co mapping image, a Ga mapping image, and an Al mapping image, in the order mentioned” ([0137]). The Examiner suggests considering either separating the individual figures or labelling them in the manner of Figure 2A, 2B, 2C, etc. as described above for each “mapping image”, and amending the specification to reflect the figure changes as needed. Such an amendment should not constitute new matter as long as the descriptions of the images themselves do not change. For example, the description for the leftmost image of Figure 2 should remain “Nd mapping image” as presently described in the instant specification regardless of whether the image is relabeled to Figure 2A, or a different label.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claimed heavy rare earth element content of 0.30 mass% or less excluding 0 mass% is interpreted as being part of the claimed rare earth element content of 28.50 mass% or more and 31.50 mass% or less since the claim recites “the rare earth element comprising a heavy rare earth element” in line 2 of claim 1. If this interpretation is incorrect, Applicant should specify the correct interpretation of this term in response to this Office action, and indicate where such interpretation finds support in the specification as originally filed.
Further regarding the heavy rare earth element of claim 1, “heavy rare earth element” is interpreted as including but not limited to elements Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu, as described in [0021] of the instant specification.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 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 2 recites a Ga content divided by Al content based on mass is 0.04 or more and 0.59 or less. Claim 1, on which claim 2 depends, recites a Ga content of 0.04 to 0.40 mass% and Al content of 0.40 to 0.85 mass%. Dividing the smallest amount of Ga by the largest amount of Al of claim 1 results in a value of 0.047. The lowest claimed limit of claim 2 is 0.04, but the claimed Ga and Al ranges of claim 1 do not allow for a composition that covers a Ga/Al value between the 0.04 and 0.047 values included in claim 2. Claim 2 therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends since it is attempting to broaden the composition range claimed in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites a C content divided by a total of Zr and B content based on mass is 0.026 or more and 0.095 or less. Claim 1, on which claim 3 depends, recites a C content of 0.05 to 0.11 mass%, Zr content of 0.21 to 0.85 mass%, and a B content of 0.90 to 1.02 mass%. Dividing the smallest amount of C by the largest amounts of Zr and B of claim 1 results in a value of 0.0267. Dividing the largest amount of C by the smallest amounts of Zr and B of claim 1 results in a value of 0.099. The lowest claimed limit of claim 3 is 0.026, but the claimed C, Zr, and B ranges of claim 1 do not allow for a composition that covers a C/(Zr+B) value between the 0.026 and 0.0267 values included in claim 3. Claim 3 therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends since it is attempting to broaden the composition range claimed in claim 1.
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
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0143965 A1 of Nakamura in view of US 2006/0213582 A1 of Hirota.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches an RFeB sintered magnet containing: 28% to 33% by mass of a rare-earth element R, 0% to 2.5% by mass of Co (cobalt) (i.e., Co may not be contained), 0.3% to 0.7% by mass of Al (aluminum), 0.9% to 1.2% by mass of B (Boron), and less than 1,500 ppm of O (oxygen), with the balance being Fe (Abstract, reads on claimed R-T-B based permanent magnet).
List 1
Instant claims (mass%)
Nakamura (mass%)
Hirota Example 1 (at%)
Rare earth element
28.50-31.50
28-33
Nd: 13.228 at% (equivalent to 29.56 wt%)
Heavy rare earth element
0.30 or less excluding 0
May contain a heavy rare earth element as part of the rare earth element ([0040])
“Comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of Nb, Pr, Dy, and Tb” (claim 4, Dy and Tb are heavy rare earth elements)
Dy: 0.061 at% (equivalent to 0.15 wt%)
Co
0.20-0.80
0-2.5
-
Al
0.40-0.85
0.3-0.7
0.497 at% (equivalent to 0.21 wt%)
Zr
0.21-0.85
0.05-0.35
-
Ga
0.04-0.40
≤ 0.2
-
B
0.90-1.02
0.9-1.2
5.969 at% (equivalent to 1 wt%)
C
0.05-0.11
≤ 2000 ppm (equivalent to 0.2 mass%)
-
O
0-0.12
< 1500 ppm (equivalent to 0.15 mass%)
0.485 at% (equivalent to 0.12 wt%)
Cu: 0.1-0.5
Cu+Al ≥ 0.5
Cu: 0.398 at% (equivalent to 0.39 wt%)
F: 0.179 at% (equivalent to 0.05 wt%)
Fe
“comprising Fe”
Balance
79.183 at% (equivalent to 68.51 wt%)
Ga/Al
0.04-0.59 (claim 2)
0.003-0.29 (calculated)
-
C/(Zr+B)
0.026-0.095 (claim 3)
0-0.13 (calculated)
-
Nakamura teaches a magnet with a chemical composition (claims 1-6, [0009], [0019], [0020], [0022], [0040], Examples of Table 2) overlapping with the claimed magnet, as shown in List 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Nakamura therefore reads on the limitation an R-T-B based permanent magnet comprising at least a rare earth element, Fe, Co, Al, Zr, Ga, B, and C, the rare earth element comprising a heavy rare earth element, wherein the R-T-B based permanent magnet has a rare earth element content of 28.50 mass% or more and 31.50 mass% or less, a heavy rare earth element content of 0.30 mass% or less excluding 0 mass%, a Co content of 0.20 mass% or more and 0.80 mass% or less, an Al content of 0.40 mass% or more and 0.85 mass% or less, a Zr content of 0.21 mass% or more and 0.85 mass% or less, a Ga content of 0.04 mass% or more and 0.40 mass% or less, a B content of 0.90 mass% or more and 1.02 mass% or less, a C content of 0.05 mass% or more and 0.11 mass% or less, and an O content of 0 mass% or more and 0.12 mass% or less of claim 1.
Regarding the heavy rare earth element of claim 1, Nakamura teaches the RFeB sintered magnet may contain a heavy rare earth element as part of the rare earth element ([0040]), but does not specify contents of heavy rare earth element. Nakamura therefore does not explicitly disclose a heavy rare earth element content of 0.30 mass% or less excluding 0 mass% of claim 1.
Regarding the heavy rare earth element content of claim 1, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary amounts of heavy rare earth elements used in permanent magnets. Hirota provides this teaching showing a rare earth permanent magnet (Title). Hirota and Nakamura are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with rare earth permanent magnets with similar compositions including heavy rare earth elements. Hirota teaches an inventive example (Example 1 of Table 2) with a Dy content of 0.061 at%, which is equivalent to 0.15 mass%, and lies within the claimed heavy rare earth element content of the instant invention. Hirota teaches Tb and/or Dy infiltrates the magnet body and imparts the characteristic magnetic structure that the coercive force of a surface layer is higher than in the interior ([0034]). Hirota further teaching adding Dy improves heat resistance ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the magnet of Nakamura, and adjusting and varying the heavy rare earth element content, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by the Dy content of Nakamura, in order to form a conventional rare earth permanent magnet using known and tested heavy rare earth element contents predictably suitable for permanent magnets with excellent magnetic properties, a characteristic magnetic structure and coercive force, and improved heat resistance, as taught by Hirota.
Modified Nakamura therefore reads on the limitation a heavy rare earth element content of 0.30 mass% or less excluding 0 mass% of claim 1.
Modified Nakamura therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Nakamura teaches the magnet of claim 1 as described above.
While Nakamura does not explicitly disclose values of Ga/Al of claim 2 nor C/(Zr+B) of claim 3, performing the calculations with the compositions of Nakamura results in values overlapping with the claimed ranges as shown in List 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Nakamura therefore reads on the limitation wherein the Ga content divided by the Al content based on mass is 0.04 or more and 0.59 or less of claim 2, and wherein the C content divided by a total of the Zr content and the B content based on mass is 0.026 or more and 0.095 or less of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the magnet of claim 1 as described above.
Nakamura teaches R2 is one or both of Tb and Dy ([0019], Tb and Dy are heavy rare earth elements) and the concentration of F and R2 is highest at the surface of the magnet body and gradually decreases toward the center of the magnet body ([0037], reads on claimed distribution of concentrations of the heavy rare earth element decreasing from a surface). Additionally, Figs. 2a and 2b of Nakamura show Dy distribution images of magnet bodies with Dy concentration decreasing from the surface into the center of the magnet ([0016]).
Modified Nakamura therefore reads on the limitation having a distribution of concentrations of the heavy rare earth element decreasing from a surface of the R-T-B based permanent magnet inwards of claim 4.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2020161812A of Tsubokura (as cited in IDS mailed 03/20/2024, with reference to its English machine translation) is considered relevant to claims 1-4. Tsubokura teaches a broader disclosure of a magnet with a chemical composition (claims 1-7, [0006]-[0012], [0021], [0031]-[0041], [0046]-[0056]) overlapping with the claimed magnet, and an inventive example (Example 31) with a chemical composition lying within the claimed ranges with the exception of Tb, which is 0.31 mass% compared to the upper claimed limit of 0.30 mass% heavy rare earth element, a 0.23 mass% Al which is below the claimed lower limit of 0.40 mass%, and the exclusion of C. While Tsubokura teaches the magnet may further include M which is at least one selected from Cu, Mn, Al, and Ga where an amount of M may be 0% or more and 1.3% or less ([0047]), which encompasses embodiments with Al contents between 0 and 1.3 mass%, Tsubokura teaches the Al content may be 0.07% to 0.35% by mass since when Al levels are low, HcJ levels tend to decrease and when Al levels are high, Br levels tend to decrease ([0050]). Tsubokura teaches coercivity HcJ and residual magnetic flux density Br are magnetic properties ([0005]). Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add Al above the 0.35 mass% content of Tsubokura since magnetic properties, namely Br, would deteriorate at “high” levels, as taught by Tsubokura.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights