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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/23/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311372958.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “The present disc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial except (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical formulas or equations). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 sets forth the mathematical formula for hysteretance value C and the mathematical relationship for hysteretance value of a hysteretance components connected in series and parallel.
Claim 2 sets forth the mathematical formula for the magnetic flux flowing through a hysteretance component.
Claim 3 sets forth the mathematical relationship between a phasor of the magnetomotive force and a phasor of the magnetic flux.
Claim 4 sets forth the mathematical formula for hysteretance reactance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cheng, et al. (US 2026/0291416), Cheng, et al. (US 2026/0280459) and Cheng, et al. (US 2026/0252777) teach a hysteretance component having a hysteretance value.
Likewise, the following teach a hysteretance component having a hysteretance value:
Chengbo, et al., “Analytical Loss Model for Magnetic cores Based on Vector Magnetic Circuit Theory”, IEEE Open Journal of Power Electronics, 10.1109/OJPEL.2024.3476166, 2024.
Wei Qin, et al., “Compatibility Analysis Among Vector Magnetic Circuit Theory, Electrical Circuit Theory, and Electromagnetic Field Theory”, IEEE Access, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3323407, 2023.
Li, et al., “Core Loss Model for Nonsinusoidal Excitations Based on Vector Magnetic Circuit Theory”, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, Vol. 40, No. 11, November 2025.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
October 6, 2026
