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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 17-19, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (NPL: "Magnetic force microscopic study...").
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a bulk permanent magnet of composition Ce2Fe14-xCoxB whereby x = 0, 1.02, 2.38, or 3.74 (Table 2) as well as a composition of Ce2Fe14-x-y-zCoxNiyCuzB whereby x is held constant at 1.02, y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (Table 3). Thus, x in the composition in Wang is akin to “y” of the instant application and Ni and Cu are akin to M3 whereby y and z are akin to “z” of the instant. Therefore, x satisfies the claimed range of “y” (between 0 and 3), Ni and Cu are at least one element from M3, and individually or in summation y and z satisfy the range of the claimed range of “z” (between 0 and 1). In the article by Wang, “x” of the instant is equal to 0, “v” is equal to 0 (no inclusion of M1 or M2), and “w” is equal to 0.7 (satisfying claimed range of between 0 and 0.8). Wang holds the value of Co constant when including additional elements Cu and/or Ni which is why the reported formula does not account for substitution of Cu and/or Ni into the valencies of both Fe and Co. Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “A bulk permanent magnet composition comprising the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2.7-(v+w)M2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB, wherein: M1 represents at least one lanthanide element other than Ce; M2 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi, Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr; M3 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Ta, and Hf; 0 ≤ x < 1; 0 ≤ v ≤ 1; 0 ≤ y ≤ 3; 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.8; and 0 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Wang sets x = 0, 1.02, and 2.38, thus satisfying the bounds of the claimed range of “y”. Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < y ≤ 3.”.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Wang sets x = 0, 1.02, and 2.38, thus satisfying the bounds of the claimed range of “y”. Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 2.”.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Wang sets x = 0, 1.02, and 2.38, thus satisfying the bounds of the claimed range of “y”. Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < y ≤ 2.”.
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, in all cases, Wang has the equivalent formula whereby w is understood to be 0.7, thus a formula of Ce2Fe14-xCoxB or Ce2Fe14-x-y-zCoxNiyCuzB whereby “v” and “x” as claimed in the instant application are equal to 0. Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises the sub-formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB.”.
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches the composition of claim 21. Further, Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). Thus, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches the composition of claim 21. Wang also teaches in Tables 2-3 whereby neither Ni or Cu are included and thus the “z” as claimed is set to 0. Therefore, Wang teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein z is 0 and the composition thus comprises the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)B.”.
Claims 1, 6, 11-16, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jurczyk et al (NPL: "Magnetic behavior of R1.9Zr0.2Fe14B...").
Regarding claim 1, Jurczyk teaches preparation of a bulk permanent magnet composition represented by the formula R2-xZrxFe14B (thus case where “x”, “y”, and “z” as claimed are 0, where “w” as claimed is 0.7, and where M2 as claimed is Zr). In Tables 1-2, Jurczyk discloses prepared magnets of Ce2Fe14B and Ce1.9Zr0.1Fe14B, thus exemplifying the case whereby “v” as claimed is equal to 0 or 0.1. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “A bulk permanent magnet composition comprising the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2.7-(v+w)M2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB, wherein: M1 represents at least one lanthanide element other than Ce; M2 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi, Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr; M3 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Ta, and Hf; 0 ≤ x < 1; 0 ≤ v ≤ 1; 0 ≤ y ≤ 3; 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.8; and 0 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 6, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk teaches no inclusion of Co, thus satisfying “y” as claimed where y is 0. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 2.”.
Regarding claim 11, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. Jurczyk teaches a magnet represented by Ce1.9Zr0.1Fe14B, thus M2 is at least Zr. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M2 represents at least Bi and/or Zr from among the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr.”.
Regarding claim 12, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus satisfying “v” within the claimed range. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.01 ≤ v ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 13, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus satisfying “v” within the claimed range. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 14, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus satisfying “v” within the claimed range. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 0.4.”.
Regarding claim 15, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus satisfying “v” within the claimed range. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 0.2.”.
Regarding claim 16, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus satisfying “v” within the claimed range. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ v ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 21, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jurczyk has Ce2-x thus the case where “w” as claimed is equivalent to 0.7 and satisfying the claimed “sub-formula” as the magnets of Jurczyk are represented by Ce2-xZrxFe14B whereby “x”, “y”, and “z” as claimed are 0. Thus Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises the sub-formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB.”.
Regarding claim 22, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 21. Further, Jurczyk includes Zr at 0.1, thus “v” as claimed is 0.1. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein 0.01 ≤ v ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 24, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 21. Further, Jurczyk does not include an element M3 and thus z = 0 as described in the rejections of claims 1 and 21. Therefore, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein z is 0 and the composition thus comprises the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)B.”.
Regarding claim 25, Jurczyk teaches the composition of claim 24. Further, Jurczyk includes Zr at 0.l, thus “v” as claimed is 0.1. Thus, Jurczyk teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 24, wherein 0.01 ≤ v ≤ 1.”.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (NPL: "Tuning the structure and intrinsic...").
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches doping of La (M1 as claimed) into a Ce-Fe-B bulk permanent magnet matrix phase to effectively eliminate any CeFe2 phase, thus leaving only the Ce2Fe14B phase (Tables 1-2). In Table 2, Li discloses bulk permanent magnet compositions of Ce2Fe14B (satisfying conditions as claimed where x, v, y, and z are 0 and where w is 0.7), (Ce0.74La0.26)2Fe14B (x=0.26, v, y, and z are 0, and w is 0.7), and (Ce0.56La0.44)2Fe14B (x=0.44, v, y, and z are 0, and w is 0.7). Thus, Li teaches the claimed “A bulk permanent magnet composition comprising the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2.7-(v+w)M2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB, wherein: M1 represents at least one lanthanide element other than Ce; M2 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi, Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr; M3 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Ta, and Hf; 0 ≤ x < 1; 0 ≤ v ≤ 1; 0 ≤ y ≤ 3; 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.8; and 0 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Li includes La at amounts of 0.26 and 0.44, thus satisfying the claimed range of x. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < x < 1.”.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Li includes La at amounts of 0.26 and 0.44, thus satisfying the claimed range of x. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ x < 1.”.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Li includes La at amounts of 0.26 and 0.44, thus satisfying the claimed range of x. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8.”.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. In Li’s disclosed magnets, Co is not included and thus y = 0. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 2.”.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Li teaches inclusion of La into Ce-Fe-B magnet, thus M1 is at least La. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M1 represents at least La from among the one or more lanthanide elements.”.
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. Further, Li teaches inclusion of La into Ce-Fe-B magnet, thus M1 represents La. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M1 represents La”.
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. Li does not include Nd in their disclosed magnets. Thus, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M1 excludes Nd.”.
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches the composition of claim 1. In Table 2, Li discloses bulk permanent magnet compositions of Ce2Fe14B (satisfying conditions as claimed where x, v, y, and z are 0 and where w is 0.7), (Ce0.74La0.26)2Fe14B (x=0.26, v, y, and z are 0, and w is 0.7), and (Ce0.56La0.44)2Fe14B (x=0.44, v, y, and z are 0, and w is 0.7) which all effectively meet the sub-formula as claimed (Ce1-xLax)2Fe14B whereby v, y, and z as claimed are all 0. Thus, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises the sub-formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB.”.
Regarding claim 24, Li teaches the composition of claim 21. Further, as described in the rejection of claim 21, Li does not include an element M3, thus “z” as claimed is 0. Therefore, Li teaches the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein z is 0 and the composition thus comprises the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)B”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurczyk et al as applied to claim 1 above (respective to Jurczyk et al), and further in view of Li et al (NPL: "Tuning the structure and intrinsic...").
Regarding claim 1, as described above, Jurczyk discloses compositions of cerium based magnets whereby the composition satisfies the claimed conditions. Jurczyk teaches preparation of a bulk permanent magnet composition represented by the formula R2-xZrxFe14B (thus case where “x”, “y”, and “z” as claimed are 0, where “w” as claimed is 0.7, and where M2 as claimed is Zr). In Tables 1-2, Jurczyk discloses prepared magnets of Ce2Fe14B and Ce1.9Zr0.1Fe14B, thus exemplifying the case whereby “v” as claimed is equal to 0 or 0.1. Jurczyk is silent on inclusion of Co, M2, and M3 as claimed. In an analogous bulk magnet preparation, Li teaches doping of La (M1 as claimed) into a Ce-Fe-B bulk permanent magnet matrix phase to effectively eliminate any CeFe2 phase (thus leaving only the Ce2Fe14B phase), increase the Curie temperature, and enhance the magnetic moment of Fe. In Table 2, Li discloses bulk permanent magnet compositions of Ce2Fe14B (satisfying conditions as claimed where x, v, y, and z are 0 and where w is 0.7), (Ce0.74La0.26)2Fe14B (x=0.26, v, y, and z are 0, and w is 0.7), and (Ce0.56La0.44)2Fe14B (x=0.44, v, y, and z are 0, and w is 0.7). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include La, within the range informed by Li, into the disclosed compositions of Jurczyk to increase the Curie temperature and enhance the magnetic moment of Fe and arrive at the invention as claimed. Inclusion of La would further substitute Ce in the formula of Jurczyk, whereby La is also substituted by Zr since Zr replaces Ce as disclosed by Jurczyk thus a new formula of (Ce1-xLax)2-vZrvFe14B whereby x can be 0, 0.26, or 0.44 as informed by Li and v=0.1 as informed by Jurczyk. Thus, Jurczyk and Li teach the claimed “A bulk permanent magnet composition comprising the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2.7-(v+w)M2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB, wherein: M1 represents at least one lanthanide element other than Ce; M2 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi, Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr; M3 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Ta, and Hf; 0 ≤ x < 1; 0 ≤ v ≤ 1; 0 ≤ y ≤ 3; 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.8; and 0 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurczyk et al in view of Li et al as applied to claim 1 above (respective to Jurczyk et al), and further in view of Wang et al (NPL: "Magnetic force microscopic study...").
Regarding claim 1, as described above, Jurczyk and Li teach arrival to the invention as claimed but are silent on inclusion of Co and M3. Analogously, Wang teaches a bulk permanent magnet of composition Ce2Fe14-xCoxB whereby x = 0, 1.02, 2.38, or 3.74 (Table 2) as well as a composition of Ce2Fe14-x-y-zCoxNiyCuzB whereby x is held constant at 1.02, y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (Table 3). Thus, x in the composition in Wang is akin to “y” of the instant application and Ni and Cu are akin to M3 whereby y and z are akin to “z” of the instant. Therefore, x satisfies the claimed range of “y” (between 0 and 3), Ni and Cu are at least one element from M3, and individually or in summation y and z satisfy the range of the claimed range of “z” (between 0 and 1). Wang holds the value of Co constant when including additional elements Cu and/or Ni which is why the reported formula does not account for substitution of Cu and/or Ni into the valencies of both Fe and Co. Wang specifically shows that inclusion of Co into Ce2Fe14-xCoxB results in decreasing domain width and magnetic crystal size and increased saturation magnetization (Results 3.1, Fig. 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Co, as informed by Wang, into the composition of Jurczyk informed by Li to increases saturation magnetization of the prepared bulk magnet and arrive at the invention as claimed. Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). Wang reports that Cu reduces domain width while Ni increases the width. Further, Wang discloses that addition of Ni improves domain wall energy while addition of Cu reduces domain wall energy. However, the highest domain wall energy of Ce2(Fe,Co)14B was achieved when doping with 1.2 at% Ni (Ni0.2 in molecular composition) and 0.7 at% Cu (Cu0.119 in molecular composition). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to further include Ni and/or Cu within the disclosed ranges to achieve desirable modifications to domain wall energy or domain width of the prepared CeFeB bulk permanent magnet as informed by Wang. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “A bulk permanent magnet composition comprising the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2.7-(v+w)M2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB, wherein: M1 represents at least one lanthanide element other than Ce; M2 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi, Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr; M3 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Ta, and Hf; 0 ≤ x < 1; 0 ≤ v ≤ 1; 0 ≤ y ≤ 3; 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.8; and 0 ≤ z ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 2, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Li includes La at amounts of 0.26 and 0.44 (x as claimed is 0.26 and 0.44) and thus would be obvious amounts to include in the bulk preparation and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < x < 1”.
Regarding claim 3, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Li includes La at amounts of 0.26 and 0.44 (x as claimed is 0.26 and 0.44) and thus would be obvious amounts to include in the bulk preparation and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ x < 1”.
Regarding claim 4, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Li includes La at amounts of 0.26 and 0.44 (x as claimed is 0.26 and 0.44) and thus would be obvious amounts to include in the bulk preparation and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.8”.
Regarding claim 5, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Wang teaches a bulk permanent magnet of composition Ce2Fe14-xCoxB whereby x = 0, 1.02, 2.38, or 3.74 (Table 2) as well as a composition of Ce2Fe14-x-y-zCoxNiyCuzB whereby x is held constant at 1.02, y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (Table 3). Thus, x in the composition in Wang is akin to “y” of the instant application and Ni and Cu are akin to M3 whereby y and z are akin to “z” of the instant. Therefore, x satisfies the claimed range of “y” (between 0 and 3). Wang specifically shows that inclusion of Co into Ce2Fe14-xCoxB results in decreasing domain width and magnetic crystal size and increased saturation magnetization (Results 3.1, Fig. 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Co, within the range as informed by Wang, into the composition of Jurczyk informed by Li to increases saturation magnetization of the prepared bulk magnet and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < y ≤ 3.”.
Regarding claim 6, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Wang teaches a bulk permanent magnet of composition Ce2Fe14-xCoxB whereby x = 0, 1.02, 2.38, or 3.74 (Table 2) as well as a composition of Ce2Fe14-x-y-zCoxNiyCuzB whereby x is held constant at 1.02, y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (Table 3). Thus, x in the composition in Wang is akin to “y” of the instant application and Ni and Cu are akin to M3 whereby y and z are akin to “z” of the instant. Therefore, x satisfies the claimed range of “y” (between 0 and 3). Wang specifically shows that inclusion of Co into Ce2Fe14-xCoxB results in decreasing domain width and magnetic crystal size and increased saturation magnetization (Results 3.1, Fig. 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Co, within the range as informed by Wang, into the composition of Jurczyk informed by Li to increases saturation magnetization of the prepared bulk magnet and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 2”.
Regarding claim 7, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Wang teaches a bulk permanent magnet of composition Ce2Fe14-xCoxB whereby x = 0, 1.02, 2.38, or 3.74 (Table 2) as well as a composition of Ce2Fe14-x-y-zCoxNiyCuzB whereby x is held constant at 1.02, y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (Table 3). Thus, x in the composition in Wang is akin to “y” of the instant application and Ni and Cu are akin to M3 whereby y and z are akin to “z” of the instant. Therefore, x satisfies the claimed range of “y” (between 0 and 3). Wang specifically shows that inclusion of Co into Ce2Fe14-xCoxB results in decreasing domain width and magnetic crystal size and increased saturation magnetization (Results 3.1, Fig. 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Co, within the range as informed by Wang, into the composition of Jurczyk informed by Li to increases saturation magnetization of the prepared bulk magnet and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < y ≤ 2”.
Regarding claim 8, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 (Jurczyk in view of Li), Li teaches inclusion of solely La as M1. Thus, arrival to the invention in the rejection above would include M1 represented as at least La. Therefore, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M1 represents at least La from among the one or more lanthanide elements”.
Regarding claim 9, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 (Jurczyk in view of Li), Li teaches inclusion of solely La as M1. Thus, arrival to the invention in the rejection above would include M1 represented as La. Therefore, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M1 represents La”.
Regarding claim 10, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 (Jurczyk in view of Li), Li teaches inclusion of solely La as M1. Thus, arrival to the invention in the rejection above would include M1 excluding Nd. Therefore, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M1 excludes Nd”.
Regarding claim 11, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. In Jurczyk’s composition, Zr is included as M2. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M2 represents at least Bi and/or Zr from among the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr.”.
Regarding claim 12, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. In Jurczyk’s composition, Zr is included at 0.1, thus within claimed range of “v”. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.01 ≤ v ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 13, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. In Jurczyk’s composition, Zr is included at 0.1, thus within claimed range of “v”. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 14, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. In Jurczyk’s composition, Zr is included at 0.1, thus within claimed range of “v”. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 0.4”.
Regarding claim 15, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. In Jurczyk’s composition, Zr is included at 0.1, thus within claimed range of “v”. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 0.2”.
Regarding claim 16, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. In Jurczyk’s composition, Zr is included at 0.1, thus within claimed range of “v”. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ v ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 17, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the teachings of Wang would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to include Cu and/or Ni within the disclosed ranges whereby “z” as claimed is 0.17, 0.136 or 0.319. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < z ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 18, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the teachings of Wang would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to include Cu and/or Ni within the disclosed ranges whereby “z” as claimed is 0.17, 0.136 or 0.319. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 19, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Wang sets y = 0, 0.17, or 0.2, and z = 0, 0.136 or 0.119 (equivalent “z” as claimed would thus be 0.17, 0.136, or 0.319). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the teachings of Wang would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to include Cu and/or Ni within the disclosed ranges whereby “z” as claimed is 0.17, 0.136 or 0.319. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 20, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. As described in the rejections of claims 1, 13, and 17 above, Jurczyk in view of Li and Wang would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a bulk magnet of composition whereby “v” and “z” as claimed are included between >0 and ≤1. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein 0 < v ≤ 1 and 0 < z ≤ 1”.
Regarding claim 21, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Further, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang all teach compositions such that the sub-formula is satisfied as “w” is equal to 0.7 in all cases. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises the sub-formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)1-zM3zB”.
Regarding claim 22, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 21. As described in the rejections of claims 1 and 12, such arrival to the invention as claimed includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus “v” is 0.1. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein 0.01 ≤ v ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 23, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 21. As described in the rejections of claims 1 and 18, such arrival to the invention as claimed includes “z” (Ni and/or Cu) as claimed in amounts of 0.17, 0.136 or 0.319. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 1.”.
Regarding claim 24, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 21. Jurczyk, Li, and Wang all teach cases whereby M3 is not included or “z” as claimed is 0. As described in the rejection of claim 1, Wang teaches why addition of Co into the CeFeB based magnet is important for modifying domain wall energy and domain width of the crystal and that Ni and Cu serve similar purposes. Wang also prepares desired magnets without any Ni and/or Cu. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to not include Ni and Cu in the prepared composition and only modulate the amount of Co in order to tune domain wall energy and domain width and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 21, wherein z is 0 and the composition thus comprises the formula (Ce1-xM1x)2-vM2v(Fe14-yCoy)B”.
Regarding claim 25, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 24. As described in the rejections of claims 1, 12, and 22, such arrival to the invention as claimed includes Zr at an amount of 0.1, thus “v” is 0.1. Thus, Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the claimed “The composition of claim 24, wherein 0.01 ≤ v ≤ 1.”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurczyk et al in view of Li et al and Wang et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al (NPL: "Unraveling the 4f electronic structures of cerium monopnictides").
Jurczyk, Li, and Wang teach the composition of claim 1. Jurczyk is silent on inclusion of an element in combination of Zr to replace the rare earth or Ce component. In a related venture, Lu describes cerium-based heavy fermion materials whereby compounds such as Bi and Sb are capable of occupying voids in the lattice of Ce crystal structure. Ce alloys tend to display mixed-valence behaviors, arising from large 4f valence state fluctuations according to Lu. However, replacement by Bi greatly suppresses such fluctuations and thus reduces mixed-valence behaviors. Although Lu teaches this behavior in fermion materials as opposed to a rare earth bulk magnet, the same principal applies in the teachings of Jurczyk specific to Ce replacement by Zr, thus the trends would expect to hold in applying Ce substitution by Bi as well. Additionally, electron valency behaviors are known in the art to hold responsible for electronic and magnetic properties of a composition, thus relevant characteristics to consider when preparing a bulk magnet. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Bi, as informed by Lu, into the composition taught by Jurczyk, Li, and Wang in order to stabilize valence state fluctuations of the prepared bulk magnet. Therefore, Jurczyk, Li, Wang, and Lu teach the claimed “The composition of claim 1, wherein M2 represents at least Bi and/or Zr from among the group consisting of Sn, Sb, Bi Pb, Ca, Sr, and Zr”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yin et al (NPL: 2022) disclose Ce2Fe14B whereby multiple relevant elements pertaining to M1, M2, and M3 can substitute into relevant valency locations. Zhang et al (NPL: 2015) disclose relevant rare earth doping to general CeFeB based magnets. Sakuma et al (US PGPub 20220139601) disclose relevant inclusion of elements to CeFeB based magnets. Nakamura (US PGPub 20200013529) also teaches magnets of structure R2Fe14B. Parker et al (US PGPub 20220076867) disclose a mixed rare earth element iron boron magnet with additional relevant elements that can be included. Mohri et al (EP0187538) teaches inclusion of Bi into CeFeB magnet but substitutes into Fe as opposed to Ce. Hirokazu (WO 2022124344) teaches substitution of elements relevant to M3 of the instant application into the place of Fe, Co. Zhao et al (CN112289533A) teach specific ratio between Ce/Bi such that Bi can aid in keeping consistent magnetic phases and makes up for any reduction of coercivity caused by Ce in CeFeB based magnets, thus implying that substitution of Ce for Bi is an important factor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights