Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/261,562

CORE BLOCK FOR MOTOR, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CORE BLOCK FOR MOTOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
JOHNSON, RASHAD H
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fanuc Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
443 granted / 554 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
579
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 554 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Remarks Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 7/14/2023. Claims 5-7, 9-10, and 19 have been amended. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 (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 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomoe et al. (JP 2017186586; IDS). In claim 1, Tomoe discloses (Fig. 1-3B) a core block (1) for a motor, the core block (1) comprising stacked electromagnetic steel sheets ([0028]), wherein the core block (1) is achieved by performing edge formation machining (annealing; [0034]) using electrical energy or optical energy to form some or an entire perimeter of an edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1), and performing punching using press machining ([0028-0031]) on the electromagnetic steel sheets before or after the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy ([0068]). In claim 2, Tomoe discloses wherein the core block (1) is achieved by performing punching using the press machining to form some or the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1) at a portion in the electromagnetic steel sheets where the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is not performed ([0031-0032]). In claim 3, Tomoe discloses wherein the core block (1) is achieved by performing, on a portion in the electromagnetic steel sheets where punching using the press machining has been performed, the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy to form some or the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1; [annealing; [0032-0034]). In claim 4, Tomoe discloses wherein the core block (1) is achieved by, in a state where a plurality of the electromagnetic steel sheets that have been subjected to punching using the press machining are stacked and secured, performing the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy to form some or the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1; step (3); [0068]). In claim 8, Tomoe discloses wherein the electromagnetic steel sheets have holes that are used when the electromagnetic steel sheets are secured in a stacked state at a time of the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy (1; step (3); [0068]). In claim 11, Tomoe discloses (Fig. 1-3B) a core block (1) for a motor, the core block (1) comprising stacked electromagnetic steel sheets ([0028]), wherein the electromagnetic steel sheets are provided with, at some or an entire perimeter of an edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets, an edge formation machining mark section formed by edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy (annealing; [0034]), and a punching mark section formed by the electromagnetic steel sheets being punched using press machining ([0028-0031; [0068]). In claim 12, Tomoe discloses wherein the edge formation machining mark section (radial direction) and the punching mark section (axial direction) are not adjacent in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets extends and a thickness direction of the electromagnetic steel sheets ([0028-0031; [0068]). In claim 15, Tomoe discloses a method for producing a (Fig. 1-3B) core block (1) that is for a motor and includes stacked electromagnetic steel sheets, the method comprising: edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy (annealing; [0034]) to form some or an entire perimeter of an edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block; and punching using press machining on the electromagnetic steel sheets before or after the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy ([0028-0031; [0068]). In claim 16, Tomoe discloses wherein, the punching is performed using the using the press machining to form some or the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1) at a portion in the electromagnetic steel sheets where the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is not performed ([0031-0032]). In claim 17, Tomoe discloses wherein, the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is performed, the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy to form some or the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1; [annealing; [0032-0034]). In claim 18, Tomoe discloses wherein, the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is, in a state where a plurality of the electromagnetic steel sheets where punching using the press machining has been performed are stacked and secured, performed to form some or the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (1; step (3); [0068]). In claim 19, Tomoe discloses wherein the press machining (shearing; [0028-0031]) is performed by providing a machining allowance corresponding to a portion to be removed when the core block (1) is subjected to the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy ([0068]). 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. Claim(s) 5-7, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoe et al. (JP 2017186586; IDS) in view of Ogino et al. (US 2018/0269731). In claim 5, Tomoe teaches the core block of claim 1, with the exception of wherein a site in the motor where the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is performed to form the entire perimeter of the edges on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block is an inner peripheral surface or an outer peripheral surface of a circular site to which a mating member is fitted. However, Ogino teaches (Fig. 1-13) a core block (3) wherein a site in the motor (100) where the edge formation machining using optical energy is performed to form the entire perimeter of the edges on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (3) is an inner peripheral surface or an outer peripheral surface of a circular site to which a mating member (21, 22, 43, 44) is fitted ([0040; 0055-0056]). Therefore in view of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a structure for welding such that cogging torque is reduced (Ogino; [0055]). In claim 6, Tomoe teaches the core block of claim 1, with the exception wherein a site in the motor where the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is performed to form the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block is an outer peripheral surface on a rotor core that is to be a gap section in the motor, or tooth tips in a stator core that are to be a gap section in the motor. However, Ogino teaches (Fig. 1-13) a core block (3) wherein a site in the motor where the edge formation machining using optical energy is performed to form the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (3) are tooth tips (30b1, 30b2) in a stator core (1) to be a gap section in the motor. Therefore in view of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a structure for welding such that cogging torque is reduced (Ogino; [0055]). In claim 7, Tomoe teaches the core block of claim 1, with the exception of wherein a site in the motor where the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is performed to form the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block is an edge on a tooth in a stator core. However, Ogino teaches (Fig. 1-13) a core block (3) wherein a site in the motor where the edge formation machining using optical energy is performed to form the entire perimeter of the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets in the core block (3) is an edge on a tooth (30b1, 30b2) in a stator core (1). Therefore in view of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a structure for welding such that cogging torque is reduced (Ogino; [0055]). In claim 9, Tomoe teaches the core block of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the press machining is punching machining using a die. However, Ogino teaches (Fig. 1-13) a core block (3) wherein the block is press machined by punching machining using a die ([0110]). Therefore in view of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a structure for offset welding such that cogging torque is reduced (Ogino; [0121]). In claim 10, Tomoe teaches the core block of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the edge formation machining using electrical energy or optical energy is electrical discharge machining or laser processing. However, Ogino teaches (Fig. 1-13) a core block (3) wherein the edge formation machining using optical energy is laser processing (welding; [0110]). Therefore in view of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a structure for offset welding such that cogging torque is reduced (Ogino; [0121]). In claim 13, Tomoe teaches the core block of claim 11, with the exception of wherein the edge formation machining mark section and the punching mark section are adjacent in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets extends and a thickness direction of the electromagnetic steel sheets. However, Ogino teaches (Fig. 1-13) a core block (3) punching mark section [0110]) are adjacent in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the edge on the electromagnetic steel sheets extends and a thickness direction of the electromagnetic steel sheets. Therefore in view of Ogino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a structure for offset welding such that cogging torque is reduced (Ogino; [0121]). In claim 14, Tomoe as modified teaches the core block of claim 13; furthermore Tomoe teaches wherein the edge formation machining mark section is formed on the electromagnetic steel sheets in a state where a plurality of the electromagnetic steel sheets are stacked and secured (Fig. 1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ushida et al. (US 2019/0372440) teaches a rotary electric machine member manufacturing method includes: a step of providing a motor core by stacking a plurality of electromagnetic steel sheets; and a step of welding the motor core by keyhole welding while pressurizing the motor core in a stacking direction with a welding pressure lower than that at which the thickness of the motor core in the stacking direction levels off. Ikuta et al. (US 2019/0312473) teaches a rotor of rotary electric machines including a rotor core which include first and second core blocks. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm. 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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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. RASHAD H. JOHNSON Examiner Art Unit 2834 /RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597823
Rotor and Method for Producing a Rotor
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597819
Insulation Device, Motor Stator and Motor
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12573921
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC SHIELD TO PREVENT BEARING AND/OR GEARBOX DAMAGE DUE TO SHAFT INDUCED VOLTAGE IN ELECTRIC MOTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573907
STATOR HAVING SLOTS FILLED WITH RESIN FOR INSULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567790
MAGNETIC FLUX MODULATED TYPE MAGNETIC GEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+13.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 554 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month