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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 May 2024 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “gradually” in claims 4 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much the concentrations of Pr, Cu, and Ga would have to decrease with respect to the depth from the surface of the magnet in order for it to be considered gradual.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “a concentration of Ga in M is 0.3 mass% or more”. It is unclear if the concentration of Ga is relative to the total mass of M specifically, or if the concentration of Ga is relative to the total mass of the entire magnet. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110299237A of Gong in view of WO2022123991A1 of Koda.
Regarding claim 1, Gong teaches a R-T-B based sintered magnet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Gong discloses that The RTB based sintered magnet may have an R of 29.50 to 33.00% by mass, B of 0.70 to 0.95 mass%, Al of 0.03 to 0.60 mass%, Cu of 0.01 to 1.50 mass%, Co of 0.00 to 3.00 mass%, and a mass of 0.10 to 1.00. % Ga, 0.05 to 0.30% by mass of C, 0.03 to 0.40% by mass of O, and a remainder, and the remainder may be only Fe, or Fe, and other elements, Para[0028]. The sum of the ranges of Al, Cu and Ga, which correspond to the claimed M, is 0.09-2.4 mass%. Therefore, Gong discloses overlapping ranges for all elements of claim 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. Gong also discloses that the sintered magnet 2 may also have a plurality of two-grain boundary 10 . The two-grain boundary 10 is a grain boundary phase between two adjacent main phase particles 4. At least a portion of the two-grain boundary 10 may contain a transition-rich metal phase 6. At least a portion of the two-grain boundary 10 may contain an R-rich phase 8. That is, at least a part of the two-grain boundary 10 may contain at least one of a Cu-depleted phase and a Cu-rich phase, Para[0047]. Thus, Gong teaches a first phase between adjacent crystal grains, and a second phase between the grains and the first phase that contains more copper than the first phase. Gong does not teach a mass % of Pr specifically in the second phase.
Koda teaches an R-T-B permanent magnet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Koda discloses that it is preferable to include one or more elements selected from neodymium (Nd) and praseodymium (Pr) as R, Para[0011]. Koda also teaches a main phase, and grain boundaries, the grain boundaries contain an R-rich phase and an R-T phase, Para[0006]. Koda teaches that the R-rich phase refers to a phase in which the R content is 40.0 at% or more, Para[0035]. One of ordinary skill in the art, considering the teachings of Koda, would be able to select Pr as the only element included in R. Therefore, the range of R disclosed by Koda would overlap with the claimed range for Pr in the second phase. 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. Koda teaches that when the above-mentioned R-rich phase 15 and R-T phase 13 are contained, the effect of promoting magnetic fragmentation of the main phase particles 11and the effect of releasing Ce from the main phase particles 11 are achieved simultaneously. As a result, an R-T-B sintered magnet with high HcJ is obtained, Para[0040]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Pr in the second phase, in the range taught by Koda, in the R-T-B magnet of Gong in order to obtain a magnet with high HcJ. Thus, Gong in view of Koda covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the second phase is included between the first phase and each of the two crystal grains.
Gong discloses that the sintered magnet 2 may also have a plurality of two-grain boundary 10 . The two-grain boundary 10 is a grain boundary phase between two adjacent main phase particles 4. At least a portion of the two-grain boundary 10 may contain a transition-rich metal phase 6. At least a portion of the two-grain boundary 10 may contain an R-rich phase 8. That is, at least a part of the two-grain boundary 10 may contain at least one of a Cu-depleted phase and a Cu-rich phase, Para[0047]. Therefore, Gong teaches a phase between the main phase and one of the grain boundary phases. Thus, Gong in view of Koda teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the first phase comprises: R: 15 mass% or more and 65 mass% or less; M: 2 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less; and T: 20 mass% or more and 80 mass% or less, and the second phase comprises: R: 20 mass% or more and 65 mass% or less; M: 2 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less; and T: 20 mass% or more and 80 mass% or less, and has a higher M concentration than the first phase.
Gong discloses Al of 0.03 to 0.60 mass%, Cu of 0.01 to 1.50 mass%, and a mass of 0.10 to 1.00 % Ga, Para[0028]. The sum of the ranges of Al, Cu and Ga, which correspond to the claimed M, is 0.09-2.4 mass %. Therefore, Gong discloses overlapping ranges for M both in the first phase and second phase. 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. Gong does not disclose R and T contents of the first and second phases specifically.
Koda teaches that the R-rich phase 15 refers to a phase in which the R content is 40.0 at% and the T content is lower than that of the R-T phase, Para[0035], and a R-T phase with R content is between 20.0 at% and 40.0 at%, and a T content is between 55.0 at% and 80.0 at%, Para[0034]. The R and T contents of the R-rich phase overlap with that of the claimed first phase and the R and T contents of the R-T phase overlap with that of the claimed second phase. 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. Koda also discloses Cu-depleted phase and a Cu-rich phase, Para[132], corresponding to the claimed higher M in the second phase. Koda teaches that when the above-mentioned R-rich phase 15 and R-T phase 13 are contained, the effect of promoting magnetic fragmentation of the main phase particles 11and the effect of releasing Ce from the main phase particles 11 are achieved simultaneously. As a result, an R-T-B sintered magnet with high HcJ is obtained, Para[0040]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the R and T contents of the different phases taught by Koda in the R-T-B sintered magnet of Gong in order to obtain high Hcj. Thus, Gong in view of Koda covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that M further necessarily contains Ga.
Gong teaches that the content of Ga may be from 0.10 to 1.00% by mass, Para[0115]. Therefore, Gong’s R-T-B magnet must necessarily contain Ga. Thus, Gong in view of Koda covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming the following formula: 26.0 mass% ≤ ([Nd] + [Pr] + [Ce] + [La] + [Dy] + [Tb]) - 12([O] + [C]) ≤ 27.7 mass%, wherein [Nd], [Pr], [Ce], [La], [Dy], [Tb], [O], and [C] are contents of Nd, Pr, Ce, La, Dy, Tb, O, and C expressed in mass%, respectively.
Gong discloses an R of 29.50 to 33.00% by mass, 0.05 to 0.30% by mass of C, 0.03 to 0.40% by mass of O, and a remainder, and the remainder may be only Fe, or Fe, and other elements, Para[0028]. Gong also teaches that the rare earth element R in the sintered magnet contains at least one of (Nd) and praseodymium(Pr). The sintered magnet may further contain other rare earth elements R in addition to Nd or Pr. The other rare earth element R may be selected from the group consisting of (Sc), (Y), (La), (Ce), (Sm), (Eu), (Gd), (Tb), ( At least one of Dy), Ho (Ho), Para[0042]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select values of R, O, and C, based on the teaching of Gong, such as 29.5 for R, 0.1 for O, and 0.1 for C, resulting in a value of 27.1 which falls within the claimed range. 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. Thus, Gong in view of Koda covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110299237A of Gong in view of WO2022123991A1 of Koda, as cited above, further in view of US2019185971A1 of Kuniyoshi and JP2021153148A of Furusawa.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the Pr and Cu concentrations gradually decrease in a depth direction from a surface in a range from the surface to a depth of 200 μm.
Gong does not teach Pr and Cu concentrations decreases in a depth direction from the surface of the magnet.
Kuniyoshi teaches a R-T-B sintered magnet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kuniyoshi discloses a sintered R-T-B based magnet according to the present disclosure that contains Pr and Ga which have been introduced from the surface via diffusion through the grain boundaries. Kuniyoshi discloses that there exists a site in which the Pr concentration gradually decreases from the magnet surface toward the magnet interior, Para[0030]. Kyniyoshi discloses at least a size of 200 μm from the magnet surface toward the magnet interior, Para[0031]. Koniyoshi teaches that various embodiments of the present invention provide methods for producing a sintered R-T-B based magnet which attains high Br and high HcJ while reducing the RH content, Para[0009].
Furusawa teaches a method for manufacturing R-T-B based sintered magnet and alloy for diffusion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Furusawa discloses that M2 always contains at least one of Cu and Ga), and the surface of the R1-TB based sintered magnet material. At least a part thereof includes a diffusion step in which at least a part of the R2-Y—M2 diffusion alloy is brought into contact with the alloy and heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 700 ° C. or higher and 950 ° C. or lower in a vacuum or an inert gas atmosphere, Para[0013]. This temperature range is the same as that disclosed in the diffusion step described in the instant specification, Para[0046]. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the sintered magnet of Furusawa would necessarily contain Cu concentrations that decrease in a depth direction from a surface. Furusawa discloses that the embodiments of the present disclosure suppress the loss of effective heavy rare earth elements (which can be introduced into the sintered magnet material) due to oxidation and hydroxylation of the diffusion alloy, and have high Br and high HcJ, Para[0012].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kuniyoshi and Furusawa, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a diffusion alloy of Pr and Cu which would result in Pr and Cu concentrations that decrease in a depth direction from the surface in order to achieve high HcJ in the sintered magnet. Thus, Gong in view of Koda, Kuniyoshi, and Furusawa cover all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110299237A of Gong in view of WO2022123991A1 of Koda, as cited above, further in view of JP2021153148A of Furusawa.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming a concentration of Ga in M is 0.3 mass% or more and does not gradually decrease in a range from a surface to a depth of 200 μm.
Gong teaches that the content of Ga may be from 0.10 to 1.00% by mass. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Given that Gong does not teach a diffusion alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Ga disclosed by Gong is contained in the sintered magnet before the heat treatment resulting in a distribution of Ga throughout the magnet that is not concentrated at the surface.
Additionally, Furusawa discloses that M2 always contains at least one of Cu and Ga), and the surface of the R1-TB based sintered magnet material. At least a part thereof includes a diffusion step in which at least a part of the R2-Y—M2 diffusion alloy is brought into contact with the alloy and heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 700 ° C. or higher and 950 ° C. or lower in a vacuum or an inert gas atmosphere, Para[0013]. This temperature range is the same as that disclosed in the diffusion step described in the instant specification, Para[0046]. Furusawa also teaches Ga in a range of 0% by mass or more and 0.8% by mass or less, in the R1-TB based sintered magnet, which is the part of the magnet not contained in the diffusion alloy, Para[0013]. Based on the teachings of Furusawa, one of ordinary skill in the art could select only Cu and not Ga for the composition of M2. This would result in the composition of claim 7. Therefore, Furusawa teaches the claimed composition and the heat treatment diffusion step of the instant invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, see MPEP 2112.01. Furusawa discloses that the embodiments of the present disclosure suppress the loss of effective heavy rare earth elements (which can be introduced into the sintered magnet material) due to oxidation and hydroxylation of the diffusion alloy, and have high Br and high HcJ, Para[0012].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Gong and Furusawa, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Ga in M, but not in the diffusion alloy resulting in a concentration of Ga that does not decrease in a depth direction from the surface. Thus, Gong in view of Koda and Furusawa covers all limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights