Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/567,271

IMPROVED PASSIVE DEVICE, ARRANGEMENT AND ELECTRIC CIRCUIT FOR LIMITING OR REDUCING A CURRENT RISE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Priority
Jun 10, 2021 — GB 2108344.9 +1 more
Examiner
NGUYEN, TUYEN T
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Emerson Electric Co.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
1019 granted / 1251 resolved
+21.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1308
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1251 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tominaga et al. [US 5,821,844]. Regarding claim 1, Tominaga et al. discloses a device [figure 9], comprising: a first magnetic core with at least one annular path for a magnetic flux, wherein the first magnetic core has two interconnected annular paths for a magnetic flux formed by three legs and interconnections of first ends of the three legs [11e, 11e, 1c] and interconnections of second ends of the legs, wherein the first magnetic core comprises a main air gap [sheet 52], which is arranged in a third leg of the legs; a first magnet [4a] arrangement having at least one permanent magnet in the at least one annular path of the first magnetic core; and a first coil [3] being wound around the first magnetic core, wherein the at least one annular path has a first section with parallel sub paths, wherein a first sub path of the sub paths comprises a first bypass air gap [sheet 51] and a second sub path of the sub paths is a continuous path comprising the first magnet arrangement [figure 9]. Regarding claim 2, Tominaga et al. discloses a first leg [11e] of the legs comprises the first section (S1) with the parallel sub paths [figure 9], wherein a second leg [11e] of the legs comprises a second section with parallel sub paths [figure 9], wherein a first-third sub path of the sub paths comprises a second bypass air gap [filled by sheet 51] and a second-fourth sub path of the sub paths is a continuous path comprising a second magnet arrangement having at least one permanent magnet [4], wherein the first coil [3] is wound around the third leg [1c] and wherein the first magnet arrangement and the second magnet arrangement cause a magnetic flux in the same rotational sense. Regarding claim 3, Tominaga et al. discloses in the first section the first sub path is straight, and the second sub path does not overlap the first sub path; and/or in the second section the first sub path is straight and the second sub path does not overlap the first sub path [figure 9]. Regarding claim 10, Tominaga the coil [3] arranged in proximate at the main gap of the third core leg [figure 9]. 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. Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga et al. in view of Chen et al. [CN 106057395]. Regarding claim 4, Tominaga et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific arrangement of the permanent magnet. Chen et al. discloses a magnetic core structure [figure 2] having three legs with gaps formed in the three legs. Chen et al. further discloses the first section the second sub path comprises a first part being arranged perpendicular to the first straight sub path, a second part adjacent to the first part being arranged parallel to the first straight sub path and a third part adjacent to the second part being arranged perpendicular to the first straight sub path; and/or, in the second section the second sub path comprises a first part being arranged perpendicular to the first straight sub path, a second part adjacent to the first part being arranged parallel to the first straight sub path and a third part adjacent to the second part being arranged perpendicular to the first straight sub path [figure 2]. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the permanent magnet arrangement of Chen et al. in Tominaga et al. for the purpose of improving magnetic loops/flux/field desired. Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. discloses the use of permanent magnets and magnetic core [figure 2]. Regarding claims 5, and 7-8, Chen et al. discloses the use of permanent magnets and other permanent magnets arrange [figures 3-16]. The specific use of permanent magnets arrangement would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of improving magnetic fields/flux. The specific length of the gap relative to the permanent magnets would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating different desired magnetic flux/field. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga et al. in view of JP2553017Y2. Regarding claim 9, Tominaga et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific of the main gap. JP2553017Y2 discloses a magnetic core for a magnetic device [figures 1-5] having a third leg [2, 21, 34] with a main gap, wherein the main gap having stepping structure [figures 1-5]. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the stepping structure design of JP2553017Y2 in Tominaga et al. for the purpose of improving strength and/or reducing breakage. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga et al. Regarding claim 11, Tominaga et al. discloses the use of soft magnetic material for the magnetic core. Iron is a known material use for the magnetic core. The specific material use for the permanent magnet(s) would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose providing a lighter device. Also, neodymium is a known permanent magnet use in a gapped inductor structure. Regarding claims 12-13, the specific use of the device in other applications such as an arrangement of a switching device or electric circuit connected to a DC grid would have been an obvious design consideration based on the intended applications and/or environments uses. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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. /TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12700536
A TRANSFORMER ARRANGEMENT
1y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12695021
SYMMETRIC SPLIT TRANSFORMER FOR EMI REDUCTION
5y 8m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12695020
INDUCTOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12695019
ELECTRIC DEVICE WITH FORCED DIRECT COOLING
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12688967
INDUCTOR DEVICE
4y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+1.1%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1251 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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