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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 08 June 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement for restriction did not show why the groups lack unity for a unique special technical feature in each group. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is not a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, and therefore is treated under US practice. See MPEP § 801. In the Office Action mailed 07 April 2026, a proper showing of distinctness was made for the groups of claims related as a product and process of making. See MPEP § 806.05(f). Furthermore, search burden was shown based on their separate classifications, separate status in the art, and different fields of search. See MPEP § 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08 June 2026.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4: The terms “high-performance” and “high-thermal-stability” in claims 1-4 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “high” (i.e. in high-performance and in high-thermal-stability) 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. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitation will be considered to be met in prior art that discloses a desire or need to increase or improve performance and thermal-stability.
Claims 3 and 4 recite M containing at least two elements, Cu and Ga (i.e. requiring at least two elements) and at least one of Co, Ti, Zr, V, Mo, and Nb (i.e. requiring at least three elements). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP 2173.05(c). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language (i.e. of at least two elements being Cu and Ga) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2014/0290803).
Claim 1: Kato teaches a R-T-B based sintered magnet, representative of NdFeB based sintered magnet, that is advantageous for miniaturization and high efficiency (i.e. high-performance) and is important to suppress demagnetization at high temperature (i.e. high-thermal-stability) (paragraph 0002). The magnet (also referred to as a rare earth based magnet) is characterized in containing R2T14B crystal grains as the main phase (paragraph 0014), where R represents a rare earth magnet, T represents one or more elements of the iron group with Fe as an essential element, and B represents boron (i.e. R2T14B corresponds to Re2Fe14B) (paragraph 0002). Two-grain boundary phases formed between adjacent R2T14B main-phase crystal grains are preferably composed of R-rich phases (i.e. rare earth-rich phase) with the atomic concentration of rare earth element contained in the R-rich phases being preferably 60 at% or more and preferably being Nd and Pr (paragraph 0015) (i.e. containing Re and a rare earth-rich phase; i.e. Re is one or more of rare earth elements and contains at least one of Pr and Nd).
Kato teaches a substantially identical composition of the magnet as outlined in the following table.
Kato (paragraphs 0034-0040, 0046)
Instant specification (p. 3, l. 18-22)
R: 29.5 to 33 mass% (i.e. wt%)
Re: 29.5-33 wt%
B: 0.7 to 0.95 mass%
B: 0.85-0.98 wt%
M: 0.03 to 1.5 mass% where M is Al, Ge, Si, Sn, Ga;
Cu: 0.01 to 1.0 mass%
and 5 mass% or lower of elements other than Fe in the balance
M: 0.5-5 wt%, containing Cu and Ga, and at least one of Co, Ti, Zr, V, Mo, and Nb; Cu > 0.45%, Ga<0.25% and ratio Cu/Ga is Y where 1.8<Y≤10
Fe: balance (i.e. calculated as about 58.5-69.8%)
Fe: 61-69 wt%
Each of the ranges outlined above overlap, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Kato teaches a substantially identical process as outlined in the following table.
Kato (paragraphs 0056-0062)
Instant specification (p. 3, l. 23 to p. 4, l. 18)
Raw materials are prepared and subjected to strip casting method and then coarse pulverization (i.e. prepare alloy flake)
S1: mix materials and prepare alloy flake by a strip casting process with smelting at 1400-1500°C under argon protection
Hydrogen decrepitation may be performed (i.e. treating with hydrogen) and then fine pulverization by jet mill (i.e. air-jet milling) to an average particle size of several micrometers
S2: treating the alloy flake with hydrogen and pulverize by air-jet milling to a particle size of 2.5-5 µm
Micro powder raw materials (i.e. alloy powder) filled into a mold equipped with an electromagnet to apply a magnetic field (i.e. in a uniform magnetic field) of 100-1600 kA/m (i.e. about 0.13-2T) under a pressure of 30-300 MPa (i.e. understood to be cold isostatic pressing because hot temperature is not specified)
S3: magnetic-forming the alloy powder in a uniform magnetic field of 1.5-2T, and preparing a green body by cold isostatic pressing
Sintering in vacuum (or inert) at 1000-1100°C for 1-10h, and then subject to an aging treatment at 500-900°C, may be in two stages, first at about 800°C (i.e. about 800-900°C based on general temperature range) and then at about 550°C (i.e. about 500-550°C based on general temperature range)
S4: sintering the green body in a vacuum sintering furnace at 1030-1080°C for 6-10h, and then performing an aging treatment as a two-stage tempering heat treatment at a primary tempering at 800-900°C for 3-5h and a secondary tempering at 460-520°C for 1-6h, with thermal-insulation stage at 0.02-0.05MPa pressure and cooling structure at 0.06-0.08MPa pressure both under inert atmosphere of argon
Although not specifying all of the details as in the instant specification (e.g. inert atmosphere of argon is not always stated but would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when working with metal powders, which are prone to oxidation; for e.g. the amount of time and pressure are not always explicitly provided, but are parameters that are considered to be routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art). Other details pertain to the microstructure, which is a result of the materials and processing used. As outlined above, Kato teaches substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner, and therefore would be expected to have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
While not teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed magnet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date due to the overlapping ranges in composition and processing conditions, which would result in the instantly claimed properties and functions, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: As outlined above, Kato teaches substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner, and therefore would be expected to have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claims 3 and 4: Kato teaches the sintered magnet has a content of R (i.e. Re) of 29.5 to 33 mass% (i.e. wt%) (paragraph 0042); a content of B of 0.7 to 0.95 mass% (paragraph 0036); a content of M of 0.03 to 1.5 mass% (where M is Al, Ge, Si, Sn, Ga, etc.; paragraph 0046), of Cu of 0.01 to 1.0 mass%, and of elements other than Fe in the balance (including more than 0% and 3.0 mass% or less of Co; paragraph 0048) of 5 mass% or lower (paragraphs 0037-0040) (i.e. a total amount of M including Cu and Co is about more than 0.04% to about 7.5 mass% or less); and a balance of Fe (i.e. calculated as about 58.5-69.8%) (paragraph 0039). Each of these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. A ratio of the amount of Cu (i.e. 0.01-1.0%) and the amount of Ga (i.e. less than 0.03-1.5% since this amount includes multiple elements) results in a mass content ratio that overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2022/0102034) teaches a sintered NdFeB magnet that includes R1 being one or more of Nd, Pr, and Ce, and M being one or more of Al, Cu, Ga, Ti, Co, Mo, Nb, etc.
Ding et al. (US 2019/0051435) teaches a sintered R-T-B magnet, wherein R is at least one rare earth element such as Nd etc. and contains Pr and Nd in an amount of 31-34 wt%, T is at least one transition metal such as Fe and Co, and B is at least one element selected from B and N (i.e. a NdFeB magnet) (paragraph 0003). More specifically, Pr and Nd are present together in an amount of 31 to 34 wt%, B is 0.8-1.2 wt%, Cu is 0.6-1.2 wt%, Ga is 0.1-0.4 wt%, Al is 0.4-0.8 wt%, Co is 0.6-1.2 wt%, and balance is iron (paragraph 0033). The R2T14B main phases are spaced from one another and grain boundary phases are disposed therebetween (paragraph 0009). The grain boundary phases include a first grain boundary phase and a second grain boundary phase (paragraph 0045) and further includes Nd-rich phase (i.e. Re-rich phase) with NdOx (i.e. Re-O) (paragraph 0047).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights