DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed January 2, 2026. Claims 1-2 are pending.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichigozaki et al. (PGPub US 2021/02727551).
Ichigozaki et al. disclose production of a rare earth magnet, the process comprising preparation of a magnetic powder of samarium, iron, and nitrogen (paragraphs 0059 and 0110), preparation of a binder powder of a material such as zinc (paragraph 0123), mixing of the magnetic powder with the binder powder, performing compression molding and subsequently pressure sintering (paragraphs 0087, 0090, and 0102), where the pressure sintering is carried out between the softening temperature of the binder powder, 380ºC for zinc, and a limit temperature (paragraph 0093). Ichigozaki et al. further set forth a pressure during pressure sintering of 500 to 5000MPa for a duration of 10 seconds to 3600 seconds (paragraph 0099).
While Ichigozaki et al. do not appear to disclose the exact ranges for the parameters claimed, the ranges disclosed overlap, or come so close, to those claimed a prima facia case of obviousness is established (2144.05 I). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from within the ranges disclosed by Ichigozaki et al. including values which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges, or for the sintering time, select a value so close to applicants’ claimed range as to produce the same result. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the claimed lower time limit, there is no patentable distinction found between 3600 seconds (1 hour) and values approaching 3600 seconds (more than 1 hour, e.g. 3601 seconds).
Ichigozaki et al. do not appear to disclose a diffraction peak and bulk density value for the rare earth magnet, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to result in substantially identical products. Given that Ichigozaki et al. disclose forming of a rare earth magnet by subjecting substantially identical materials, to a substantially identical process (as discussed above with respect to claim 1), the rare earth magnet of Ichigozaki et al. would be expected to have a substantially identical structure to that of applicants’ rare earth magnet, including having a diffraction peak value, and bulk density, within, or at least overlapping, applicants’ claimed values.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive.
Applicants argue that the claims as amended require sintering duration of more than 1 hour which distinguishes over Ichgozaki et al. who disclose a maximum time of 3600 seconds (1 hour). However 3600 seconds is so close to applicants’ claimed range of more than 1 hour that it fails to establish a patentable distinction. Values approaching the lower limit of more than 1 hour are infinitely close to the prior art value of 3600 seconds or less, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05 I). Non-obviousness can be established by demonstrating that the claimed range produces an unexpected result, however there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference between 1 hour and values nearly identical to one hour. Applicants’ specification includes inventive examples where inventive results are achieved at sintering duration is 1 hour, supporting a conclusion that the newly claimed lower limit is not distinct from the previously claimed limit.
Applicants newly established lower limit of more than 1 hour is found to be supported by the specification as originally filed where applicants previously claimed a range of 1 hour or more to 24 hours or less, however the specification does not appear to recognize a distinction between the range as originally claimed and the newly claimed range i.e. the newly claimed lower limit is not shown to exhibit a distinct result form the rage as ordinally claimed. Given the proximity of the newly claimed range to the prior art range, and the lack of evidence to support a conclusion that the newly claimed range produces unexpected results (MPEP 716.02) the newly claimed range is not found to establish a patentable distinction over Ichgozaki et al. and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ichgozaki et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights