DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending and currently under review.
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 based on an application filed on 10/24/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites that the “1-3 diffusion sources vary in composition”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the diffusion sources to vary relative to each other (ie. using different diffusion source compositions), or vary relative to the misch-metal magnet composition, or vary relative to something else entirely. It is further unclear as to how the diffusion source composition can vary relative to itself when only one single diffusion source is utilized. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any of the aforementioned interpretations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (CN112489914, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Lai et al. (CN106548843, machine translation referred to herein), Cui et al. (2022, Manufacturing processes for permanent magnets: part I – sintering and casting), Kim et al. (CN114783754, machine translation referred to herein), and Bai et al. (US 2021/0050150).
Regarding claim 1, Bao et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a rare earth magnet including sintering and several diffusion steps [0006-0007, 0013]; said method includes steps of:
Providing a sintered rare earth magnet [0002-0003].
Providing a first diffusion material R1-M alloy which can include a light rare earth element material and second diffusion material R2-M alloy which can include a heavy rare earth element material [0008].
Subjecting the sintered magnet to a first pre-diffusion step with said first diffusion material under vacuum at 600 to 800 degrees C for 1 to 6 hours with an amount of first diffusion material of 0.5 to 5 percent [0010-0011, 0016, 0024].
Further subjecting the sintered magnet to a diffusion treatment with the second diffusion material at 850 to 950 degrees C for 1 to 4 hours [0010].
A subsequent annealing (ie. tempering) step at 450 to 550 degrees C for 0 to 4 hours [0010].
The examiner notes that the aforementioned parameters of Bao et al. overlap with those as claimed, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Bao et al. does not expressly teach that the rare earth magnet is a misch-metal rare earth magnet as claimed. Lai et al. discloses a rare earth magnet composition achieving good properties such as high coercivity, wherein said composition includes a mixture of Ce, La, Pr, and Nd, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a mischmetal [0011, 0025-0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Bao et al. by utilizing the rare earth magnet composition of Lai et al. for the aforementioned benefit, wherein the composition of Lai et al. would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to be a mischmetal.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the limitations in step (1) providing the sintered rare earth magnet through steps of induction melting, strip casting, (ie. hydrogen decrepitation), jet milling, magnetic field alignment, and isostatic pressing as claimed. Cui et al. that it is well known and basic to manufacture Nd-Fe-B type magnets through strip casting of molten metal, followed by hydrogen decrepitation, jet milling, and pressing in a magnetic field (which would naturally result in alignment) prior to sintering [p.1284-1286, fig.8]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing the aforementioned steps prior to sintering because these steps are well-known and basic (ie. conventional) in the prior art as taught by Cui et al. Cui et al. further teaches that powder compaction in a magnetic field is well-known to be performed in a die or by isostatic pressing [p.1284]. Accordingly, Cui et al. discloses die pressing and isostatic pressing to be art-recognized equivalents for powder compaction, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute isostatic pressing for die pressing. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) & MPEP 2144.06.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the second diffusion material including a heavy rare earth can also include a light rare earth element as claimed. Kim et al. discloses that it is known to utilize a diffusion source having a mixed composition of both light and heavy rare earth elements for improving corrosion resistance and magnetic coercivity [0012-0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a mixed composition of both light and heavy rare earth elements for the heavy rare earth second diffusion material for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Kim et al.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an amount of the second diffusion material as claimed. Bai et al. discloses that it is known to control an amount of heavy rare earth diffusion element relative to the sintered body to be 0.2 to 1 weight percent to achieve desirable magnetic properties of coercive force and remanence [0093]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to limit the amount of the second diffusion material including heavy rare earth elements to the amount of Bai et al. for the aforementioned benefit, which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claims 2-3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Lai et al. further teaches a compositional formula of RMdFe100-d-e-fMeBf, wherein Rm includes 20 to 30 percent La, 48 to 58 percent Ce, 4 to 7 percent Pr, and 15 to 20 percent Nd, d ranges from 25 to 35 percent, M includes Al and Ga in addition to Co, Ni, etc. among others and e is limited to up to 3 percent, and f ranges from 0.6 to 1.1 percent [0011, 0014]. The examiner notes that these parameters overlap with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bao et al. further teaches an embodiment wherein R1-M is Pr80Al20, which falls within the claimed range [0016]. Regarding the second diffusion material, Kim et al. teaches a diffusion composition of R1-u-vM’uNv, wherein R can be a combination of Pr and Dy among others, for example [0012]. The inclusion range of Kim et al. naturally results in 0 to 1 for both light rare earths and heavy rare earths, which overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the method of Bao et al. above results in the first diffusion step being performed one time with the first diffusion source, which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bai et al. further teaches that diffusion heat treatment vacuum is performed specifically at a pressure of below 5x10-3 Pa, which overlaps with the claimed range [0036]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the predictable result of the diffusion heat treatment that is already under vacuum as taught by Bao et al., wherein a known vacuum pressure level that is disclosed to be useful for diffusion treatment of below 5x10-3 Pa is disclosed by Bai et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights