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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 9-14, 16, and 17 and canceled Claim 21 in the response filed on 2/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoshida fails to specifically describe electroplating a coating that includes an aluminum layer as claimed.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoshida et al. teaches a method of forming an article comprising electroplating a coating (14) on a magnet (12), the coating including an aluminum layer and the magnet comprises neodymium, iron, and boron (Fig. 1, [0024], [0025], and [0053]). Yoshida et al.’s coating layer is limited to a small number of materials and one of ordinary skill in the art can readily envisaged choosing aluminum. Yoshida et al.’s coating layer also protects the surface of the magnet from corrosion or abrasion [0004], which is the same function as Applicant’s coating layer (Please see Page 1: Lines 13-17 in Applicant’s Specification). In light of these factors, the Examiner deems that Yoshida et al. teaches the aluminum coating with sufficient specificity.
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 13 and 14 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.
Claims 13 and 14 recites the limitation "the aluminum alloy layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the instant limitation should refer to the aluminum manganese alloy layer.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 20100330361 (“Yoshida et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1-4, Yoshida et al. teaches a method of forming an article comprising electroplating a coating (14) on a magnet (12), the coating including an aluminum layer and the magnet comprises neodymium, iron, and boron (Fig. 1, [0024], [0025], and [0053]).
With regards to Claim 6, Yoshida et al. teaches the coating includes a single layer (Fig. 1).
With regards to Claim 7, Yoshida et al. teaches the coating includes multiple layers [0036].
With regards to Claim 8, Yoshida et al. teaches the coating includes three layers, the three layers comprising aluminum ([0025] and [0036]).
With regards to Claim 9, Yoshida et al. teaches one or more multiple layers comprises aluminum ([0025] and [0036]).
With regards to Claim 10, Yoshida et al. teaches one or more multiple layers comprises aluminum alloy ([0025] and [0036]).
With regards to Claim 15, Yoshida et al. teaches an intervening layer between the magnet and aluminum layer or between the aluminum layer and a third layer ([0025] and [0036]).
With regards to Claim 16, Yoshida et al. teaches the intervening layer comprising nickel ([0025] and [0036]).
With regards to Claim 17, Yoshida et al. teaches the intervening layer comprising nickel alloy ([0025] and [0036]).
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20100330361 (“Yoshida et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20020144753 (“Yoshimura et al.”).
Yoshida et al. teaches a magnet comprising NdFeB [0024], but does not specifically teach the claimed material.
However, Yoshimura et al. teaches conventional known rare earth magnets, such as magnets comprising Nd2Fe14B ([0044] and [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yoshida et al.’s magnet comprises the well-known Nd2Fe14B to obtain desirable magnetic properties.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20100330361 (“Yoshida et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20140300436 (“Lancaster-Larocque”).
Yoshida et al. does not teach one of the multiple layers comprises anodized aluminum.
However, Lancaster-Larocque teaches a method of forming an article comprising electroplating a coating on a magnet, the coating including an aluminum layer. Lancaster-Larocque further teaches that one of more of the multiple layers of its coating comprises anodized aluminum (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0030], and [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one of the multiple layers comprise of anodized aluminum in Yoshida et al.’s coating to create a robust barrier that makes corrosion quite difficult [0031].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20100330361 (“Yoshida et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20070077454 (“Sakamoto et al.”).
While Yoshida et al. teaches its intervening layer comprises a nickel alloy ([0025] and [0036]), Yoshida et al. does not teach the nickel alloy comprising nickel tungsten.
However, Sakamoto et al. teaches a magnet and a nickel tungsten alloy layer that protects the magnet from corrosion (Abstract and [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yoshida et al.’s nickel alloy be nickel tungsten, as demonstrated by Sakamoto et al., in order to provide appropriate anticorrosive materials to protect the magnet.
Claims 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20100330361 (“Yoshida et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20120205249 (“Inoue et al.”).
With regards to Claims 12-14, Yoshida et al. teaches its coating comprises multiple layers, wherein at least two of the layers comprise of Al as a major component or an alloy thereof (both corresponds to the claimed aluminum layer and/or layer that comprises an aluminum alloy) ([0025] and [0036]). Therefore, Yoshida et al. teaches a layer that comprises an aluminum alloy is on or under the aluminum layer.
Yoshida et al. does not teach its aluminum alloy layer is an aluminum manganese alloy.
However, Inoue et al. teaches electroplating an aluminum manganese alloy on workpieces (Abstract, [0007], [0014], [0048], and [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more of the multiple layers comprise of an aluminum manganese alloy in Yoshida et al.’s coating in order to obtain a uniform plated aluminum coating(s) free from burnt deposits or poor brightness with great adhesion ([0006] and [0007]).
With regards to Claims 19 and 20, Yoshida et al. teaches electroplating was performed by a barrel plating method [0058].
Yoshida et al. does not specifically teach electroplating includes loading a barrel with a plurality of magnets and rotating or vibrating the barrel in an electroplating bath.
However, Inoue et al. teaches electroplating is performed by loading a barrel with a plurality of workpieces, rotating or vibrating the barrel in an electroplating bath, and electroplating a coating comprising aluminum on the workpieces (Abstract, [0008], [0009], and [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed electroplating steps in order to obtain unform plated coatings with less prone to bare spots and adhesion failures (Abstract).
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 LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785