Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/497,614

METHOD TO MAKE IMPROVED ELECTRICAL STEELS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 30, 2023
Examiner
MOK, ALEX W
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Xerox Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
827 granted / 1114 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1158
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
63.6%
+23.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1114 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 1/8/26 is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 22, 26 (figure 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Duplicate Claims Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0395162 A1) in view of Waeckerle et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0027641 A1). For claim 1, Sridhar et al. disclose the claimed invention comprising: a ferromagnetic material having discrete particles (see the Abstract, and paragraph [0008]), the particles aligned in a unified crystallographic direction (i.e. "a magnetic field is applied so as to magnetically align the ferromagnetic particles", see paragraph [0008]). Sridhar et al. however do not specifically disclose a structural material holding the ferromagnetic material having the shape of a hollow rectangle; and a winding comprised of wires wound around the hollow rectangle to form a core. Waeckerle et al. disclose a core material (reference numeral 49) having the shape of a hollow rectangle (see figure 7) which when applied to the ferromagnetic material of Sridhar et al. would disclose a structural material holding the ferromagnetic material having the shape of a hollow rectangle, and Waeckerle et al. also disclose a winding (reference numerals 54-56) comprised of wires wound around the hollow rectangle to form a core (reference numeral 49, see figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shape of a hollow rectangle and also have the winding wires as disclosed by Waeckerle et al. for the ferromagnetic material of Sridhar et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating proper core functioning in the device. For claim 2, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the electrical core having holes arranged in hollow rectangle to accommodate the wires. Waeckerle et al. further disclose holes (i.e. space in between lateral branches 50, 51, 52 of core 49) arranged in hollow rectangle to accommodate the wires (reference numerals 54-56, see figure 7), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the holes as disclosed by Waeckerle et al. for the wires of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating proper core functioning in the device. For claim 7, Sridhar et al. disclose the particles comprising one of iron, iron silicide, and iron silicon aluminum (i.e. iron, see paragraphs [0039, 0041]). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kong (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0006511 A1). For claim 3, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the electrical core having grooves to accommodate the wires. Having grooves for accommodating the wires is a known skill as exhibited by Kong (i.e. grooves 221 for accommodating coil C, see figures 1-3), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for having the grooves as disclosed by Kong for the core of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating proper assembly of the winding component. Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piech et al. (US Patent No.: 5613188). For claims 4 and 6, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the structural material comprising aluminum. Having aluminum is a known skill as exhibited by Piech et al. (see column 4, lines 59-66), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the aluminum as disclosed by Piech et al. for the structural material of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating conductive properties in the device. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tung et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2006/0273670 A1). For claim 5, Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the structural material comprising a polymer binder. Having a polymer binder is a known skill as exhibited by Tung et al. (see paragraph [0041]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polymer binder as disclosed by Tung et al. for the structural material of Sridhar et al. in view of Waeckerle et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating functional assembly of the device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose embodiments of core materials and configurations: US 11626234 B2 (Waeckerle; Thierry et al.), US 11088578 B2 (Cunnyngham; Michael et al.), US 10254499 B1 (Cohen; Adam et al.), US 9470238 B2 (Vande Sande; Hans et al.), US 8941457 B2 (Yan; Yipeng et al.), US 6737784 B2 (Lindquist; Scott M. et al.), US 6362544 B1 (Johnston; Ralph et al.), US 6232681 B1 (Johnston; Ralph et al.), US 20250140457 A1 (Bullard; Daniel et al.), US 20220045559 A1 (Hunstable; Fred E. et al.), US 20210305886 A1 (IDE; Takahiro et al.), US 20190341821 A1 (Johnson; Francis et al.), US 20150294787 A1 (Zlatkov; Branislav), US 20130004359 A1 (Hosek; Martin), US 20110260574 A1 (Brudny; Jean Francois et al.), US 20110064944 A1 (Tew; Gregory N. et al.), US 20080007382 A1 (SNYDER; Steven R.), US 20040212269 A1 (Decristofaro, Nicholas J. et al.), US 20020005675 A1 (Johnston, Ralph et al.), WO 2018109509 A1 (WAECKERLE THIERRY et al.), EP 0415678 A2 (OTSU TAKAYUKI et al.). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX W MOK whose telephone number is (571)272-9084. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm. 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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. /ALEX W MOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 30, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603533
ROTOR ASSEMBLY FOR AN ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603532
ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597815
ROTOR FOR A ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592625
PERMANENT MAGNET ARRANGEMENT OF A SHUTTLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592623
ROTOR STRUCTURE OF ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
74%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+21.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1114 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