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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0136853 and PCT/KR2022/010393, filed on October 14, 2021 and July 15, 2022, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 8 "... polymer is contained in the mixture based on 100 parts...". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
The term “gradually” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim 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. The term "gradually" references a reduction in intensity of the alternating magnetic field applied in the limitations of For the purposes of compact prosecution and examination, “gradually” in claim 6 will be broadly interpreted as an iterative reduction of intensity with the instant specification serving as a guide to a what determines a suitable reduction rate.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikio et al (JP2000040611A).
Regarding claim 1, Mikio teaches preparation of a resin-bonded permanent magnet material using MnBi magnetic powder, thus a Mn-Bi based resin magnet. Mikio teaches general preparation of a MnBi magnetic phase powder through pulverization of a MnBi ingot which is mixed with a resin binding material, thus the powder’s surface is coated with a non-conductive polymer as the base curable resin is any of an epoxy resin, a phenol, a polyamide resin, a polyolefin resin, or polyester resin which are all understood to be non-conductive polymers. The mixed powder-polymer is then pressure molded to obtain the MnBi based resin magnet. The amount of resin polymer mixed is preferably from 0.3 to 20 parts by weight, or more preferably from 0.5 to 10 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of MnBi powder. In examples 1 and 2, Mikio mixes 5 parts by weight epoxy resin, a nonconductive polymer, or 2 parts by weight epoxy resin with 100 parts by weight MnBi magnetic powder. The mixtures are thoroughly mixed and dispersed, thus the MnBi magnetic powder surfaces are coated with the epoxy polymer. Then, Mikio pressure-molds the mixture to obtain the MnBi based resin magnet. Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “A method for preparing a Mn-Bi based resin magnet, comprising steps of: preparing a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder whose surface is coated with a non- conductive polymer; and pressure-molding the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder whose surface is coated with the non-conductive polymer, wherein 0.5 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight of the non-conductive polymer is contained in the mixture based on 100 parts by weight of the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder”.
Regarding claim 7, Mikio teaches the method of claim 1. For the pressure molding of examples 1 and 2, Mikio heats the mold to 130°C. Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “The method of claim 1, wherein the pressure molding is performed at a temperature of 20°C to 350°C”.
Regarding claim 9, Mikio teaches the method of claim 1. For the pressure molding of examples 1 and 2, Mikio molds under a pressure of 5 ton/cm2 (converts to 498.2 MPa). Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “The method of claim 1, wherein the pressure molding is performed by applying a pressure of 50 MPa to 500 MPa to the mixture”.
Regarding claim 10, Mikio teaches the method of claim 1. Although Mikio is silent on the maximum magnetic energy product outside of it being “high” or “excellent”, Mikio teaches the preparation method as claimed, thus the resulting MnBi based resin magnet would be expected to inherently possess a maximum magnetic energy product of “3 MGOe or more” as claimed. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “A Mn-Bi based resin magnet which is prepared by the method according to claim 1, and has a maximum magnetic energy product ((BH)max) of 3 MGOe or more”.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikio et al.
Regarding claim 2, Mikio teaches the method of claim 1. Further, in the step of preparing the MnBi based magnetic phase powder whose surface is coated with a non-conductive polymer (epoxy resin), Mikio teaches mixing MnBi based magnetic phase powder, epoxy resin, and methyl ethyl ketone (solvent). However, Mikio is silent on evaporating methyl ethyl ketone (solvent) outside of performing a deorganizing agent treatment which is understood to break up and dissolve the solvent, not necessarily evaporate. However, in preparation of the MnBi magnetic powder, Mikio discloses mixing MnBi powder with toluene, an organic solvent like methyl ethyl ketone, and vacuum drying at room temperature to evaporate the toluene. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the evaporation step under vacuum drying in removal of an organic solvent for the deorganizing treatment step as a known alternative step in the process for removing organic solvent to prepare a MnBi based resin magnet. Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “The method of claim 1, wherein the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder whose surface is coated with the non-conductive polymer is prepared by steps of: preparing a mixture containing a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder, a non-conductive polymer, and a solvent; and evaporating the solvent”.
Regarding claim 3, Mikio teaches the method of claim 2. Mikio does not disclose a mixing temperature but it can be assumed by one of ordinary skill in the art that the mixing and dispersing takes place at ambient or room temperature (~20-22°C) as no heating or cooling step is mentioned for preparation. The boiling point of methyl ethyl ketone, the solvent, is known to be 80°C (also around its vaporizing temperature) and would thus serve as a “capping point” for application of any heat to the mixture by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “The method of claim 2, wherein the step of preparing the mixture is performed at a temperature of 20°C to 80°C”.
Regarding claim 4, Mikio teaches the method of claim 2 but is silent on pressure conditions of the preparation step for mixing the powder with non-conductive polymer and solvent. However, in preparation of the MnBi magnetic powder, Mikio discloses mixing MnBi powder with toluene, an organic solvent like methyl ethyl ketone, and vacuum drying at room temperature to evaporate the toluene. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the evaporation step under vacuum drying in removal of an organic solvent for the deorganizing treatment step as a known alternative step in the process for removing organic solvent to prepare a MnBi based resin magnet. Thus, Mikio teaches the claimed “The method of claim 2, wherein the evaporation is performed under vacuum conditions.”.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikio et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toshio et al (JPH1064709A).
Regarding claim 2, Mikio teaches the method of claim 1. Further, in the step of preparing the MnBi based magnetic phase powder whose surface is coated with a non-conductive polymer (epoxy resin), Mikio teaches mixing MnBi based magnetic phase powder, epoxy resin, and methyl ethyl ketone (solvent). However, Mikio is silent on evaporating methyl ethyl ketone (solvent) outside of performing a deorganizing agent treatment which is understood to break up and dissolve the solvent, not necessarily evaporate. Analogously, Toshio discloses preparation of coating MnBi with a binder resin that is a non-conductive polymer such as “a vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyvinyl butyral resin, a cellulose resin Resins, fluorine resins, polyurethane resins, isocyanate compounds, radiation-curable resins and the like”. Toshio mixes the MnBi powder with a resin and an organic solvent such as methyl ethyl ketone. Toshio specifically discloses that after mixing dispersing said ingredients a drying step, thus evaporating the organic solvent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute a drying step, as informed by Toshio, for the deorganizing agent treatment step in the process of Mikio as a known alternative step in preparing MnBi based magnetic phase powders coated with a non-conductive polymer to produce a MnBi based resin magnet. Thus, Mikio and Toshio teach the claimed “The method of claim 1, wherein the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder whose surface is coated with the non-conductive polymer is prepared by steps of: preparing a mixture containing a Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder, a non-conductive polymer, and a solvent; and evaporating the solvent”.
Regarding claim 3, Mikio and Toshio teach the method of claim 2. Mikio does not disclose a mixing temperature but it can be assumed by one of ordinary skill in the art that the mixing and dispersing takes place at ambient or room temperature (~20-22°C) as no heating or cooling step is mentioned for preparation. The boiling point of methyl ethyl ketone, the solvent, is known to be 80°C (also around its vaporizing temperature) and would thus serve as a “capping point” for application of any heat to the mixture by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Mikio and Toshio teach the claimed “The method of claim 2, wherein the step of preparing the mixture is performed at a temperature of 20°C to 80°C”.
Regarding claim 4, Mikio and Toshio teach the method of claim 2 but are both silent on pressure conditions of the preparation step for mixing the powder with non-conductive polymer and solvent. However, in preparation of the MnBi magnetic powder, Mikio discloses mixing MnBi powder with toluene, an organic solvent like methyl ethyl ketone, and vacuum drying at room temperature to evaporate the toluene. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the evaporation step under vacuum drying in removal of an organic solvent for the deorganizing treatment step as a known alternative step in the process for removing organic solvent to prepare a MnBi based resin magnet. Thus, Mikio and Toshio teach the claimed “The method of claim 2, wherein the evaporation is performed under vacuum conditions.”.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikio et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baynes et al (NPL: "Comparison of Stepwise Demagnetization Techniques").
Regarding claim 5, Mikio teaches the method of claim 2. Mikio teaches demagnetization via low temperature of the prepared MnBi based magnet resin as opposed to the MnBi powder before coating. Baynes does teach demagnetizing uncoated ferromagnetic materials of small scale (<1m and analogous to Mikio) and of large scale (>>1m). Further, Baynes discloses that this demagnetization process is standard practice in the field and their demagnetization can help limit any remnant magnetization from “bias fields” (any persisting magnetic field that causes the net field to deviate from zero). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to swap the ordering of steps in demagnetization and demagnetize the powder material, as informed by Baynes, prior to coating in the process of Mikio with an expected result of producing a demagnetized material and limit remnant magnetization from bias fields. Thus, Mikio and Baynes teach the claimed “The method of claim 2, further comprising a step of demagnetizing the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder before the step of preparing the mixture”.
Regarding claim 6, Mikio and Baynes teach the method of claim 5. Baynes teaches that standard practice for demagnetizing small scale magnetic materials involves an “alternating applied magnetic field whose amplitude is slowly reduced to zero” which thus teaches “changing the direction of the magnetic field… and at the same time gradually reducing the intensity of the magnetic field.”. However, Baynes is silent on the reduction of intensity of the magnetic field in such practice outside of “slowly reduced” which falls within the claimed “gradually reducing”. In Baynes alternative demagnetization method involving a ramped dc step function (Fig. 2), Baynes applies the same theory with a dc power source as opposed to ac power source to induce the magnetic field for demagnetization. With each change of direction, Baynes reduces magnetic intensity by 200, 100, 40 or 25 A/m with an original intensity of 2000 A/M (thus, reductions of 10%, 5%, 2%, and 1.25% which all fall within “gradually reducing”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the dc demagnetization method of Baynes as opposed to standard practice ac-based demagnetization as a known alternative method of demagnetizing magnetic powders in the method of Mikio or to utilize the reduction amounts of the dc demagnetization into the standard ac based method of small scale materials as a known workflow to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Mikio and Baynes teach the claimed “The method of claim 5, wherein the demagnetization step is repeatedly changing the direction of the magnetic field applied to the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder, and at the same time gradually reducing the intensity of the magnetic field”.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikio et al in view of Toshio et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Baynes et al (NPL: "Comparison of Stepwise Demagnetization Techniques").
Regarding claim 5, Mikio and Toshio teach the method of claim 2. Mikio teaches demagnetization via low temperature of the prepared MnBi based magnet resin as opposed to the MnBi powder before coating, and Toshio is silent on a demagnetization step. Baynes does teach demagnetizing uncoated ferromagnetic materials of small scale (<1m and analogous to Mikio) and of large scale (>>1m). Further, Baynes discloses that this demagnetization process is standard practice in the field and their demagnetization can help limit any remnant magnetization from “bias fields” (any persisting magnetic field that causes the net field to deviate from zero). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to swap the ordering of steps in demagnetization and demagnetize the powder material, as informed by Baynes, prior to coating in the process of Mikio with an expected result of producing a demagnetized material and limit remnant magnetization from bias fields. Thus, Mikio, Toshio, and Baynes teach the claimed “The method of claim 2, further comprising a step of demagnetizing the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder before the step of preparing the mixture”.
Regarding claim 6, Mikio, Toshio, and Baynes teach the method of claim 5. Baynes teaches that standard practice for demagnetizing small scale magnetic materials involves an “alternating applied magnetic field whose amplitude is slowly reduced to zero” which thus teaches “changing the direction of the magnetic field… and at the same time gradually reducing the intensity of the magnetic field.”. However, Baynes is silent on the reduction of intensity of the magnetic field in such practice outside of “slowly reduced” which falls within the claimed “gradually reducing”. In Baynes alternative demagnetization method involving a ramped dc step function (Fig. 2), Baynes applies the same theory with a dc power source as opposed to ac power source to induce the magnetic field for demagnetization. With each change of direction, Baynes reduces magnetic intensity by 200, 100, 40 or 25 A/m with an original intensity of 2000 A/M (thus, reductions of 10%, 5%, 2%, and 1.25% which all fall within “gradually reducing”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the dc demagnetization method of Baynes as opposed to standard practice ac-based demagnetization as a known alternative method of demagnetizing magnetic powders in the method of Mikio in view of Toshio or to utilize the reduction amounts of the dc demagnetization into the standard ac based method of small scale materials as a known workflow to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Mikio, Toshio, and Baynes teach the claimed “The method of claim 5, wherein the demagnetization step is repeatedly changing the direction of the magnetic field applied to the Mn-Bi based magnetic phase powder, and at the same time gradually reducing the intensity of the magnetic field”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikio et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US PGPub 20160035487).
Regarding claim 8, Mikio teaches the method of claim 1 but is silent on the time of pressure molding. Analogously, Kim teaches preparation of a MnBi based magnetic substance and sintered magnet involving a pressure molding final step. In paragraph [0053], Kim discloses a sintering step at temperatures of 200-300°C which may be performed in a vacuum state and the molded article may be compressed at a pressure of 100-500 MPa. Although Kim discloses a vacuum state, Kim also specifies that the compression may be simultaneously performed with heating at the temperature for about 1-10minutes. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as a known suitable time period in a pressure molding step for preparation of MnBi based resin magnets and arrive at the invention as claimed. Additionally, in example 2 of the magnet preparation, Kim discloses a time period of 3 minutes for the sintering, albeit at vacuum conditions, but as disclosed in paragraph [0053], such process can be combined under pressurizing conditions (thus pressure molding). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to combine the sintering and compression steps together as a simultaneous pressure molding step as informed by Kim to manage a more streamlined efficient process in preparing a MnBi based resin magnet. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the pressure molding process as informed by Kim, into the process of Mikio, as a known alternative pressure molding process with an expected result of preparing an MnBi based resin magnet. Thus, Mikio and Kim teach the claimed “The method of claim 1, wherein the pressure molding is performed for 3 to 15 minutes”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikio et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin (US PGPub 20140132376).
Mikio teaches the method of claim 1 but is silent on a maximum magnetic energy product of 3 MGOe or more. Analogously, Jin teaches preparation of high strength magnets. Jin discloses in paragraph [0048] that such a magnetic material can be MnBi. Additionally, Jin teaches in paragraphs [0053-54] that the MnBi precursor material may be mixed with a polymer binder and solvent and embedded into a non-magnetic matrix material such as epoxy or polymer resin (thus non-conductive coating). In paragraphs [0100, 0113, 0119, 0128, 0134], Jin discloses that energy product BHmax of such MnBi magnets can be made to be “at least 10MGOe”, thus representing a known achievable energy product or desired energy product of such products. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for MnBi magnets having BHmax of 10MGOe, as informed by Jin, created in the process of Mikio as a known desired or typical BHmax of such MnBi resin magnets and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Mikio and Jin teach the claimed “A Mn-Bi based resin magnet which is prepared by the method according to claim 1, and has a maximum magnetic energy product ((BH)max) of 3 MGOe or more”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hirotaka et al (JP2018157152A) disclose a MnBi resin based magnet preparation where demagnetization occurs after making the compact as opposed to powder before coating. The demagnetization via alternating magnetic field ultimately reduces residual magnetic flux density in the molded body by targeting the powder constituting the body, thus it provides rationale for demagnetizing prior to pressure molding.
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