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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/28/25 and 6/24/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCall et al. (US 20200005997 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCall teaches that “the present invention relates to permanent magnets, and more particularly, this invention relates to methods of producing permanent magnets” (which reads upon “a permanent magnet comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). McCall teaches that “a magnet includes a plurality of layers, each layer having a microstructure of sintered particles” (which reads upon “a sintered magnetic body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0015]). McCall teaches that “the structure 620 comprises a first layer 604 having a first composition, a first microstructure, and a first density and a second layer 608 above the first layer 604, the second layer 608 having at least one of: a second composition that is different than the first composition, a second microstructure that is different than the first microstructure, and a second density that is different than the first density” (which reads upon “including a first portion having a first density and a second portion having a second density that is less than the first density”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0163]). McCall teaches that “the material of the first layer may be the same as the material of the second layer” (which reads upon “wherein the composition of the first and second portions is same”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 2, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “the substrate may be a porous structure” (paragraph [0100]; pores read on gap). McCall teaches that “gaps may remain between the patterns where no material is deposited” (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 3, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “in FIG. 3A, the x-y plane is represented in an isometric view of a simplified schematic diagram of a single layer 302, which is represented by a plurality of first particles 308 (shown as black dots) and/or second particles 310 (shown as white dots), and that the black dots and/or white dots may represent a density of the layer (such as the black dots representing a more dense volume, with the white dots representing a less dense volume)” (paragraph [0107] and FIG. 3A, showing white dots along an edge).
Regarding claim 6, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “the patterns are not limited to those shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, and may include any shape (polygonal, regular, irregular, etc.), repeating pattern (single pixels, lines, shapes, areas, etc.), random array” (paragraph [0108]). McCall teaches that “gaps may remain between the patterns where no material is deposited” (paragraph [0112]). McCall teaches that “the second pattern may be a reverse or negative pattern of the first pattern, e.g., similar to red and black squares of a checker board” (paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 7, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “the gradient may be a transition from at least one of: the first composition, the first microstructure, and the first density, to the at least one of: the second composition, the second microstructure, and the second density, and that is to say, any of the composition, microstructure and/or density may change from the first layer 604 to the second layer 608, with any of the remaining properties being about the same, according to various embodiments” (paragraph [0164]).
Regarding claim 8, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “the patterns are not limited to those shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, and may include any shape (polygonal, regular, irregular, etc.), repeating pattern (single pixels, lines, shapes, areas, etc.), random array” (paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 9, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “magnetic anisotropic powders having particles with high aspect ratios, such as Nd—Fe—B, may be suspended in solution and deposited in pre-defined three-dimensional (3D) shapes during the EPD process” (paragraph [0079]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall et al. (US 20200005997 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultz, L. (1991). Preparation and Properties of Mechanically Alloyed Nd-Fe-B Magnets. In: Long, G.J., Grandjean, F. (eds) Supermagnets, Hard Magnetic Materials. NATO ASI Series, vol 331. Springer, Dordrecht, Ch 23, pp 573-583.
Regarding claims 4-5, McCall teaches the magnet of claim 1 as stated above. McCall teaches that “FIG. 3C depicts a schematic drawing of a side view of the material 300 where the z direction is perpendicular to the x-y plane. In one approach, the material 300 may have a second layer 304 above the first layer 302, where the second layer 304 may be configured to form a gradient in composition, microstructure and/or density in a z-direction perpendicular to an x-y plane of the first layer 302” (paragraph [0117]). McCall teaches that “the magnet 400 may have a gradient of composition, microstructure and/or density in a thickness direction of the layers” (paragraph [0125]). McCall teaches “to form a particle packing density gradient in a direction consistent with the electric field” (paragraph [0155]). McCall teaches “permanent Nd—Fe—B magnets” (paragraph [0174]).
McCall teaches using different densities, including a gradient of density, but McCall is silent regarding the values of density, expressed as either a percentage of theoretical density or in g/cm3. Regarding the subject limitations, in order to carry out the invention of McCall, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary densities used in permanent Nd—Fe—B magnets. Schultz provides this teaching. Schultz teaches that starting from elemental powders hard-magnetic Nd-Fe-B can be produced by mechanical alloying and a solid-state reaction (page 573). Schultz FIG. 8 shows density versus pressing temperature of hot pressed Nd16Fe76B8 magnets prepared from as-milled or pre-reacted (700 °C/60 min) powders milled for 64 h at intensity 5 (page 580, FIG. 8). Schultz FIG. 8 shows samples of Nd-Fe-B magnets with densities above and below 6.6 g/cm3 (page 580, FIG. 8). Schultz FIG. 8 shows that at about 400 C, the density is about 6.1 g/cm3. Schultz FIG. 8 shows that at about 600 C, the density is close to the theoretical density, about 7.6 g/cm3. The theoretical density of permanent Nd—Fe—B magnets is about 7.6 g/cm3. So, 6.1 g/cm3 is about 80 % of a theoretical density, and 7.6 g/cm3 is about 100 % of a theoretical density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second layers of the permanent Nd—Fe—B magnet of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the density of the first and second layers, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Schultz, motivated to form a conventional permanent Nd—Fe—B magnet using known and tested values of density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Schultz teaches that these values of density are readily obtainable for permanent Nd—Fe—B magnets.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights