The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
All the references cited in the International Search Report have been considered. None is anticipatory or meet the claims.
A telephone call was made to Mary Ann Armstrong on 3/16/2026 to request an oral election to the below restriction requirement. Group I, claims 1-2 has been elected without indicating traverse.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-2, a wound core of claim 1, H01F27/2455
Group II, claim(s) 3-4, a process of producing Group I, H01F27/2455
Group III, claim(s) 5-6, a device for producing Group I, H01F27/2455
The inventions listed in all groups do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: the common technical feature in all groups is the wound core of claim 1. This element cannot be a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2 because the element is shown in the prior art. See below rejections.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this office action. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include an election of the invention to be examined even through the requirement be traversed (37 CFR 1.143).
Double Patenting-101
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-2 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-2 correspondingly of copending Application No. 18/033108. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In particular, these corresponding claims are identical except the terms of Ra(b) and Ra(s) in this application and RSm(b) and RSm(s) in ‘108. ‘108 (claims 1-2) recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ra(b) and RSm(b) have the same definition as the “average height of a roughness curve element in a width direction intersecting the longitudinal direction forming a surface of the bent portion”. Ra(s) and RSm(s) have the same definition as the “average height of the roughness curve element in the width direction forming a surface of the planar portion”.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 1-2 is(are) provisionally allowable over the closest prior art: Mizumura et al. (JP 2019024039).
As to claims 1-2, Mizumura (claims, examples, 9, 19, Fig.1-2) discloses a wound core comprising grain-oriented electrical steel sheets. The wound core comprises planar portions and bent portions that are alternately continuous in a longitudinal direction and are stacked in a sheet thickness direction and formed by stacking:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The radius of curvature of the bending part of the innermost circumference is less than or equal to 50 mm, overlapping with the range of instant claim 2. The average height of the roughness curve contouring the groove bottom area (bent portion) of the groove is 1.1 μm or less and 2.7 μm or less.
However, Mizumura fails to teach the claimed range of Ra(b)/ Ra(s) of instant claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2 is(are) allowable in proviso the above double patenting issue is resolved.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights