Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/437,812

MAGNETIC CORE, WINDING WITH MAGNETIC CORE, ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE, AND BRUSHLESS MOTOR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Examiner
DESAI, NAISHADH N
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
893 granted / 1091 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1119
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
54.8%
+14.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1091 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 03/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. 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. 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) 1,2,4,5,8,9,12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (JP 2008278632) in view of Nigo et al. (US 20180248419). Regarding claim 1, Iizuka et al. teaches: A magnetic core (abstract) comprising: a back yoke portion (11b, Figs 1-6) having a first upper surface (by 11b, Fig 3A) and a first lower surface (by 11c) aligned in an up-down direction (Fig 3); a tooth distal end portion (11c) having a second upper surface (by 11i) and a second lower surface (11g,h) aligned in the up-down direction (Fig 3); and a tooth portion (11a) extending in the up-down direction and having an upper end in contact with the first lower surface and a lower end in contact with the second upper surface, the tooth portion (11a) constructed to have a winding portion of a conductor (13) wound around the tooth portion as viewed in the up-down direction (Figs 1a,b), wherein an outer edge of the back yoke portion (11b) viewed in the up-down direction surrounds an outer edge of the tooth distal end portion (11c) viewed in the up-down direction (Fig 3 shows 11c being smaller than 11b), the outer edge of the tooth distal end portion (11c) viewed in the up-down direction surrounds an outer edge of the tooth portion (11a, Fig 3) viewed in the up-down direction. Iizuka et al. do not teach the magnetic core has at least one structure of: (A) one or more first protrusions protruding from the first lower surface, and (B) one or more second protrusions protruding from the second upper surface. Nigo et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the magnetic core (2, Fig 1) has at least one structure of: (A) one or more first protrusions protruding from the first lower surface (see annotated Fig 3 below and also seen in Fig 6 as 241b,d and 241 a,c, 242 a,c), and (B) one or more second protrusions protruding from the second upper surface (see annotated Fig 3 below and also seen in Fig 6 as 241b,d and 241 a,c, 242a,c). PNG media_image1.png 628 490 media_image1.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. wherein the magnetic core has at least one structure of: (A) one or more first protrusions protruding from the first lower surface, and (B) one or more second protrusions protruding from the second upper surface, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 2/1, Iizuka et al. teaches wherein the first lower surface has a first region overlapping the winding portion as viewed in the up-down direction, the one or more first protrusions include a first portion located in the first region, and a total area of a lower end of the first portion as viewed in the up-down direction is smaller than an area of the first region as viewed in the up-down direction (Fig 3A). Regarding claim 4/1, Iizuka et al. teaches wherein the tooth portion (11a) has a left side including a left end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction and a right side including a right end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction as viewed in the up-down direction (Fig 3A). Iizuka et al. do not teach the one or more first protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction. Nigo et al. teaches that the one or more first protrusions (see annotated Fig 3 above) are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. wherein the one or more first protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 5/1, Iizuka et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the one or more first protrusions include a portion located in a region above the winding portion. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the one or more first protrusions include a portion located in a region above the winding portion (Figs 1 and 6-better seen in 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. in wherein the one or more first protrusions include a portion located in a region above the winding portion, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 8/1, Iizuka et al. teaches wherein the tooth portion (11a) has a left side including a left end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction and a right side including a right end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction as viewed in the up-down direction (Fig 3A). Iizuka et al. do not teach the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction (Figs 1,3 and 6-better seen in 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. in wherein the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 9/1, Iizuka et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the one or more second protrusions include a portion located in a region below the winding portion. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the one or more second protrusions include a portion located in a region below the winding portion (Fig 3 by numeral 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. in wherein the one or more second protrusions include a portion located in a region below the winding portion, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 12/1, Iizuka et al. teaches wherein a length of the first upper surface in a left-right direction is longer than a length of the first lower surface in the left-right direction (Figs 1B, 3A). Regarding claim 13/1, Iizuka et al. teaches wherein a length of the second upper surface in a left-right direction is longer than a length of the second lower surface in the left-right direction (Figs 1B, 3A). Regarding claim 14/1, Iizuka et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction (see annotated Fig 3 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 15/1, Iizuka et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the tooth portion has a left side including a left end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction and a right side including a right end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction as viewed in the up-down direction, the one or more first protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction, and the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the tooth portion has a left side including a left end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction and a right side including a right end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction as viewed in the up-down direction, the one or more first protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction, and the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction (see annotated Fig 3 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. wherein the tooth portion has a left side including a left end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction and a right side including a right end of the tooth portion and extending in the front-rear direction as viewed in the up-down direction, the one or more first protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction, and the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the left side or the right side as viewed in the up-down direction, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 16/1, Iizuka et al. teaches a winding with a magnetic core (Fig 1a) comprising: the magnetic core according to claim 1; and a conductor wound around the tooth portion (Fig 1B). Regarding claim 17/16, Iizuka et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, and the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, and the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction (see annotated Fig 3 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. in wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, and the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 18/17, Iizuka et al. teaches the invention as discussed above, except wherein the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction. Nigo et al. teaches wherein the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction (see annotated Fig 3 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Iizuka et al. in view of Nigo et al. in wherein the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, as Nigo et al. teaches. The motivation to do so is that it would provide a winding frame to secure the windings (paras 52-53 of Nigo et al.). Regarding claim 19/1, Iizuka et al. teaches a rotary electric machine comprising the magnetic core according to claim 1 (abstract). Regarding claim 20/1, Iizuka et al. teaches a brushless motor comprising the magnetic core according to claim 1 (Iizuka et al. do not mention of any brushes). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3,6,7,10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 3/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the first lower surface includes a plurality of the first protrusions, and the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. In claim 6/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the second upper surface has a second region overlapping the winding portion as viewed in the up-down direction, the one or more second protrusions include a second portion located in the second region, and a total area of an upper end of the second portion as viewed in the up-down direction is smaller than an area of the second region as viewed in the up-down direction.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. In claim 7/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the second upper surface includes a plurality of the second protrusions, and the plurality of the second protrusions are arranged in the front-rear direction or a left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. In claim 10/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the tooth portion includes a front side including a front end of the tooth portion and extending in a left-right direction and a rear side including a rear end of the tooth portion and extending in the left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, and the one or more first protrusions are in contact with the front side or the rear side as viewed in the up-down direction.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. In claim 11/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the tooth portion includes a front side including a front end of the tooth portion and extending in a left-right direction and a rear side including a rear end of the tooth portion and extending in the left-right direction as viewed in the up-down direction, and the one or more second protrusions are in contact with the front side or the rear side as viewed in the up-down direction.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 M 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. NAISHADH N. DESAI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2834 /NAISHADH N DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603536
MOTOR HOUSING AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A MOTOR HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597821
ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597826
ENERGY HARVESTER USING ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION AND ENERGY HARVESTING BLOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587073
MOUNTING STRUCTURE OF GROUND RING OF MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587076
ELECTRIC MACHINE, METHOD FOR OPERATING SAID MACHINE, AND MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
82%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+8.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1091 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