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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending as filed May 27, 2025.
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 1-7 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, reference is made to a “cerium (CE)-rich”/”Ce-rich” magnetic material. However, other than in claim 2, it is not indicted how much Ce would need to be present to be considered “Ce-rich” rather than simply Ce containing. For the purpose of examination, the presence of Ce is understood to meet the claim requirements, however, applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step (2) refers to “proportionally mixing” hydride powder and nanometer metallic powder, however, it is not clarified what amounts would give proportionally mixing as opposed to simply mixing. For the purpose of examination, mixing an amount of hydride powder and an amount of nanometer metallic powder is understood to provide proportionally mixing, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step (2) refers to “nanometer metallic powder” but it is not clarified what measurements the powder must have to be considered nanometer. Claim 4 refers to a particle size of 5-500 nm, so for the purpose of examination, this is understood to meet the requirements as to nanometer metallic powder, however, applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, it is indicated to provide Ce-rich MM magnet material, however, in claim 2, the MM requirement as described as “MMx”, where x can be zero from the range given. It is confusing what would be required if x is zero, since then no MM would be present. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that at least some MM would be required, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure all defects of the claims from which they depend, so are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 117637332 (hereinafter ‘332) in view of Yamamoto et al (US 5690752) and KR 101918975 B1 (hereinafter ‘975), and further as evidenced by Chen et al (US 2012/0076684).
Claim 1: ‘332 describes a method of preparing a Nd-Fe-B magnet material, described as a permanent magnetic material (note pages 2-3 translation). It is indicated that conventional models of Nd-Fe-B magnetic material can be used (note page 4, translation, page 5, Example 1, translation). For step (1), the Nd-Fe-B magnetic material will be provided as sintered magnetic material giving an as-sintered permanent magnetic substrate magnet (note page 2, translation, page 4, translation, where the magnet can be provided and used, and sintering would allow for as-sintered). Thereafter, in a step (2) (as claimed), a first diffusion source is provided with a low heavy rare earth content (note pages 3-4, translation). It is described that the first diffusion source can include, for example, a source with Nd, Pr, etc. rare earth material and also metal such as Al, Cu and Ga (note page 4, translation). The first diffusion source is applied and attached to the substrate magnet, so coating the substrate, where the coating can be applied by slurry dipping, for example, using powder material (note page 4, translation). This would be at least suggested to provide coating on upper and lower surfaces of the substrate magnet with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since dipping would include covering an entire substrate. The diffusion source on the surface of the substrate is indicated as 1-3 % by mass/weight (note claim 5, page 4, translation), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range taught giving a value in the claimed range of less than 3 % by weight of the weight of the substrate magnet. A first surface diffusion treatment is performed on the first diffusion source coated substrate magnet, resulting in a first intermediate product (note pages 3-4, translation). Further, in a step (3) (as claimed), a second diffusion source is coated on the first intermediate product, where the second diffusion source can be a rare earth (RE) alloy powder (such as with (Dy, Ho, Pr, Nd, etc. RE and also Al, Cu or Ga, for example) (note pages 3-4, translation). The second diffusion source is applied and attached to the substrate magnet, so coating the substrate, where the coating can be applied by slurry dipping, for example (note page 4, translation). This would be at least suggested to provide coating on upper and lower surfaces of the substrate magnet with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since dipping would include covering an entire substrate. The diffusion source on the surface of the substrate is indicated as 1-2 % by mass/weight (note claim 5, page 4, translation), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range taught giving a value in the claimed range of less than 2 % by weight of the weight of the substrate magnet. A second surface diffusion treatment is performed on the second diffusion source coated substrate magnet, resulting in a second intermediate product (note pages 3-4, translation). Thereafter, a third diffusion source is applied (which is not prevented by the claims) and a step (4) (as claimed) first heat treatment (third diffusion heating) is applied which would heat the second intermediate product under the coating as well, providing a third intermediate product (note pages 3-5, translation). Thereafter, a step (5) (as claimed) of providing a second heat treatment is provided (the annealing treatment), producing a permanent magnetic material product (note pages 3-5, translation).
(A) As to providing that the Nd-Fe-B substrate is a Ce-rich misch-metal (MM) permanent magnetic material/substrate magnet,
Yamamoto describes that providing permanent magnet, obtained by pulverizing, molding and sintering a starting material (note the abstract), where it is described that the material would be such that gives an RE-Fe-B magnet (note the abstract, column 1, lines 10-15, column 3, lines 20-25), and further that the RE material can include, for example, Nd, cerium, mischmetal, and mixtures thereof (note column 3, lines 20-30). The materials would be selected to give RE materials of 25-31 wt% (note column 3, lines 25-40). Chen evidences that with rare earth magnets that can be with mischmetal (MM) Nd, Fe. B, etc (note 0011-18), known mischmetal generally has a composition with about 30-70 wt% Ce, about 19-56 wt% La, about 2-6 wt% Pr, and about 0.01-20 wt% Nd, and incidental impurities (note 0049). Yamamoto also notes preparing magnets with sintering as the last step (note column 5, lines 40-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘332 to further provide that the Nd-Fe-B magnet also contains Ce and MM, such that a C-rich MM magnet is provided as suggested by Yamamoto, as evidenced by Chen with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘332 describes using Nd-Fe-B magnets that can be a variety of known magnets, and Yamamoto indicates that when providing RE-Fe-B magnets, similarly provided can be Nd-Fe-B magnets or also Nd-Ce-MM-Fe-B magnets, and from optimizing the amount of the Ce and MM material as evidenced for composition by Chen, a Ce rich material will be provided. Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. Yamamoto also indicates that the provided magnets can be sintered as the last step of making, suggesting as-sintered material.
(B) Furthermore, as to the first diffusion source being a proportional mixture of RE hydride powder and a nanometer metallic powder,
‘975 describes a diffusion source material to use for Nd-Fe-B magnets, where the diffusion source material is provide das a mixture of rare earth hydride (such as Nd hydride or Pr Hydride) and Cu powder of 100 nm size or less (note abstract, page 4, translation), which can be applied to the substrate magnet by dip coating (note page 4, translation) and then is heat treated to diffuse into grain boundaries (note page 4, translation), where it is indicated that this Nd hydride/Cu powder mix is used instead of NdCu alloy powder, which requires complicated manufacture ( note page 4, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘332 in view of Yamamoto, as evidenced by Chen to provide that the first diffusion source is provided as a mixture of Rare earth hydride, such as Nd hydride and Cu powder as suggested by ‘975 to provide a more efficient processing, since ‘332 indicates how alloys of materials such as Nd and Cu can be used for the first diffusion source (note page 4, translation), and ‘975 indicates that for a similar desired diffusion Nd hydride powder mixture Cu powder is desirably used as not requiring the complicated processing to make NdCu alloy. As to the Cu powder size, less than 100 nm is described by ‘975, which would be suggested to be optimized from for use, giving a powder of nm size to the extent claimed.
Claim 2: As to the materials of the Ce-rich MM magnet, Yamamoto indicates how the RE-Fe-B magnet can contain Nd, Ce and mischmetal in combination, and also has Fe (as balance) and B, for example (note column 3, lines 20-35), so R can be Nd, Ce present, and MM present as claimed. As to R’ as claimed, Yamamoto also indicates that Y or Dy can be present (note column 3, lines 20-35) or as worded in claim 2, R’ amount can be zero, so not required. Further as to T as claimed in claim 2, Yamamoto also indicates that the magnet material can contain Co, Al, Cr, Ga, etc. for example (in an amount of 6 wt% of less, for example) (note column 3, lines 40-50). Yamamoto would suggest a desirable magnet material to use as discussed for claim 1 above, and it would have been obvious to optimize from the materials given, resulting in the claimed formula (note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) as discussed for claim 1 above). Furthermore, as to the composition of the MM, Chen evidences that a conventional MM formulation is about 30-70 wt% Ce, about 19-56 wt% La, about 2-6 wt% Pr, and about 0.01-20 wt% Nd, and incidental impurities (note 0049). This overlaps with what is claimed, and when using known compositions, it would have been obvious to optimize from the ranges, giving values in the claimed range.
Claim 3: As to the magnet preparation sintering conditions in step (1), Yamamoto suggests preparing by sintering, where the sintering conditions can be 1000-1200 degrees C for 0.5-5 hours (overlapping the claimed range), where the sintering can be in vacuum (note column 5, lines 40-50, column 6, lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to use such conditions as optimize the temperature and time, giving values in the claimed range. Further as to the vacuum conditions, ‘332 indicates that conventional vacuum conditions for heating treatment of the magnet material can be 1 x10-2 Pa or less (note page 3, translation) and heating in a furnace (note Example 1, page 5, translation), so it would be suggested to use such vacuum conditions for the sintering, giving a value in the claimed range.
Claim 4: as to the step (2) RE hydride powder as made with NdHx, this is suggested by ‘975 (note page 4, translation), where it would have been obvious to optimize the “x” value, giving a value of the claimed 1-f and f, in the claimed range, noting MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) as discussed for claim 1 above. As to the step (2) metallic powder, ‘975 suggests Cu powder as claimed with a particle size of less than 100 nm (note page 4, translation), and it would have been obvious to optimize from that range, giving a value in the claimed range. As to the amount of hydride powder relative the amount of Cu powder, ‘975 describes 4-6:1 by weight (note page 4, translation), so the hydride amount would be in the claimed range. As to the diffusion treatment, ‘975 describes using 450-900 degrees C for about 1 hour (note page 4, translation), and ‘332 notes how times of 800-900 degrees C for 4-20 hours can be used (note page 4, translation), suggesting to optimize the specific time and temperature used, giving values in the claimed range, and note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 5: As to the RE alloy powder used, ‘332 notes using RE1iRE2jNREq, where “j” can be zero, so an alloy powder of RE1iNREq can be used, where RE1 can be Tb, Dy or Ho as claimed, and NRE can be Al, Cu or Ga as claimed, and where i+q would be 100 and q can be between 0-10, and i can be 80 or more (note page 4, translation), and by optimizing from these ranges, the “g” as claimed would be provided. As to the second diffusion, there temperature can be 850-950 degrees C (overlapping the claimed range) for 2-10 hours (in the claimed range) (note page 4, translation), and it would have been obvious to optimize within the temperature range given, giving a value in the claimed range.
Claim 6: As to the first heat treatment conditions, ‘332 describes 900-1000 degrees C for 2-4 hours (note page 5, translation, for the third diffusion), overlapping the claimed ranges, and it would have been obvious to optimize within the ranges given, giving values in the claimed range. As to the step (5) second heat treatment conditions, ‘332 describes 400-600 degrees C (in the claimed range), for 1-10 hours (overlapping the claimed range) (note page 5, translation, for the annealing), and it would have been obvious to optimize within the ranges given, giving values in the claimed range, and as well, ‘332 gives an example of 2 hours, in the claimed range (note Example 1, page 5, translation).
Claim 7: As to the first diffusion treatment, second diffusion treatment, first heat treatment (third diffusion of ‘332), and second heat treatment (annealing of ‘332) all being at a furnace pressure of less than 10-3 Pa, ‘332 describes that each of these treatments is provided in a vacuum degree of no more than 1 x 10-2 Pa (note page 3, translation), where in Example 1, it is described how pressures can be in the 3 x 10-3 range, and heating can be provided in furnaces (note page 5, translation), and therefore it would have been obvious to optimize the pressure from the ranges given, giving values in the claimed range, and providing the pressure in a furnace for the heat treatments.
Bai et al (US 2021/0050150) notes providing a sintered NdFeB magnet (note abstract) and further diffusion RE material into the magnet with heat treatment (note claim 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights