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 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 1-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 101693519 to Lee et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for manufacturing a Mn-Bi based sintered magnet, comprising steps of: preparing a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder; and hot-pressing the magnetic phase powder under a magnetic field to manufacture it into a bulk magnet, wherein the magnetic phase powder has an average size of 3 µm (Lee, abstract, para [0092, 0099-0104]), within the instantly claimed range of 2.5 µm to 4.0 µm.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the exact manner of how the average size of 3 µm of Lee is calculated. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that average size of powder is conventionally calculated by a volume cumulative distribution of diameter, and as such Lee appears to anticipate instant claim 1. Alternatively, Lee discloses that the average size of the ground powder may be 2 to 3.5 µm (Lee, para [0079]), within the instantly claimed range of 2.5 µm to 4.0 µm. Absent a precise description of how the average particle diameter is calculated, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to use any conventional manner of measuring average particle size, including the instantly claimed average diameter of the point where the volume cumulative distribution of the diameter of the magnetic phase powder is 50%, in order to measure the average size of the powder of Lee. The motivation for doing so is that one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily need to use one of the conventional means of measuring average powder size to achieve the disclosed average powder size of Lee, and the average diameter of the point where the volume cumulative distribution of the diameter of the magnetic phase powder is 50% would be just as good as any of the other conventional methods of measuring average particle size.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the step of preparing a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder comprises steps of: manufacturing a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase alloy; pulverizing the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase alloy via cold rolling to prepare a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase coarse powder; and micronizing the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase coarse powder via ball milling to prepare a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder (Lee, abstract, para [0092, 0099-0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the Mn content is 52 atomic%, the Bi content is 47 atomic%, remainder impurities, and that Sn, Mg, Sb, C and N are not deliberately added to the powder (Lee, abstract, para [0092, 0099-0104]), which is within the instantly claimed composition ranges or alternatively that the 100% of the alloy may consist of 50 to 52 at% Mn, 47 to 49 at% Bi and the remainder impurities (Lee, para [0014]), which is within the instantly claimed composition range.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses that the magnetic field is 2 T (Lee, abstract, para [0092, 0099-0104]) or maybe 1 to 3 T (Lee, para [0087]), both within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses hot pressing at a temperature of 300 °C (within the claimed range of 100 °C to 400 °C) at a pressure of “4,000 kgf” (Lee, abstract, para [0092, 0099-0104]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lee contains a typographical error in that kgf is a unit of force and not a unit of pressure, and that unit of pressure that makes sense in this context for hot pressing would be kgf/cm2. 4,000 kgf/cm2 would be 392 MPa, within the claimed range of 100 to 400 MPa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101693519 to Lee et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 6 above.
Lee discloses a method as set forth above
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses that the step of micronizing the coarse powder is performed by ball milling the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase coarse powder (Lee, para [0079]). While Lee proposes an exemplary time of 1 to 2.5 hours, this time frame is not strictly required by Lee. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of ball milling time to produce an optimal or workable powder size distribution.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Lee discloses hot pressing at a temperature of 300 °C (within the claimed range of 100 °C to 400 °C) at a final pressure of “4,000 kgf” (Lee, abstract, para [0092, 0099-0104]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lee contains a typographical error in that kgf is a unit of force and not a unit of pressure, and that unit of pressure that makes sense in this context for hot pressing would be kgf/cm2. 4,000 kgf/cm2 would be 392 MPa, within the claimed range of 100 to 400 MPa. It would necessarily take some amount of time to increase the pressure from atmospheric pressure to the final pressure of Lee. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of time to increase pressure to final hot pressing pressure of Lee to achieve optimal or workable hot pressing in Lee without needlessly prolonging processing time or causing problems due to too rapid of a pressure increase.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101693519 to Lee et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 1-8 above and further in view of US 2019/0385789 A1 to Li et al.
Lee discloses a method as set forth above. Lee does not disclose a further step of heat-treating the bulk magnet under a magnetic field.
Li discloses that after a Mn-Bi alloy is hot pressed to form a bulk magnet, the bulk magnet may be heat treated under a magnetic field in order to form elongated grains aligned with the magnetic field and ultimately with the magnetic moment of the formed permanent magnet (Li, para [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat the bulk magnet of Lee under a magnetic field as suggested by Li. The motivation for doing so would be to form elongated grains aligned with the magnetic field and ultimately with the magnetic moment of the formed permanent magnet (Li, para [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the heat treatment may be performed at a temperature of 270 to 400 °C (Li, para [0023]), within the claimed range of 100 °C to 400 °C, and the equipment of Lee used to generate a 1 to 3 T field (Lee, para [0087]), identical to the claimed range of 1 to 3 T, could be reused to save on equipment costs.
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