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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, applicant should clarify the structure and/or arrangement intended by “high energy density electroceramic members that further minimize Eddy current loss by embedding one or more thin amorphous silica layers having thickness ≤ 1µ ”. The structure and/or arrangement of the thin amorphous silica layers relative to the atomic elements is/are unclear. T he limitation of "high energy density" electroceramic members is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what energy density is considered "high" as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any magnetic core that meets the body of the claim will be held as meeting this limitation. the limitations that the electroceramic members "minimize eddy current losses", "minimize hysteresis losses" and "minimize residual magnetic loss" are both relative terms and terms of degree that render the claim indefinite. It is unclear to what we are comparing the magnetic core to understand if the eddy current losses, hysteresis l osses and residual magnetic loss is minimized versus. Additionally, it is unclear how one would know if these values have hit a minimum, i.e. they cannot get any lower. Any magnetic core that meets the body of the claim will be held as meeting these limitations. T he limitations of "preferably a uniform grain size distribution in the range of 5-7" microns are a broad/narrow limitation within the same claim that renders the claim indefinite. The rejection can be overcome by deleting the preferable limitations at the end of the claim. Applicant should clarify. Claims 2-21 inherit the defect of the parent claim. Regarding claims 8-10, the “optimal energy storage locations” is/are unclear. In claim 10, the limitation of "ultra-low loss" is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what amount of loss is considered "ultra-low" as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any amorphous silica dielectric will read on this limitation. Regarding claims 11-13, the limitation of "micro-volumes" is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what size the volumes must be to be considered "micro" sized as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. T he phrase "optimally comprise a patterned three dimensional array" represents an exemplary limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the claim is specifically requiring the patterned three dimensional array after the term "optimally comprise" or if this is optional limitation. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this as an optional limitation. In claim 11 , the limitation of a "stable distribution" is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what distribution is considered "stable" as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any distribution of micro-volumes will read on this limitation. In claim 11 , the limitation of a "extreme magnetic flux densities" is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what magnetic flux density is considered "extreme" as the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any volumes having the same amorphous silica materials claimed will read on this limitation. In claim 11 , the limitations that the dielectric discontinuities "induce maximal inductive coupling with in the adjacent windings as the energy storing inductor coil or flyback transformer is reverse cycled" render the claim indefinite for various reasons. First, the limitations of "maximal inductive coupling" are subjective/relative terms that render the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the objective standard would be to know when one has "maximal inductive coupling" of the of the adjacent windings. Additionally, these limitations are referring to the adjacent windings of the magnetic circuit that are not included in the magnetic core material, and therefore the distribution of the micro-volumes are relative to where one would place the magnetic circuit and conductive material on the magnetic core material, which also renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, any location of the dielectric discontinuities will read on the distribution of the micro-volumes as it is dependent on the intended use of how the magnetic core is used. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the patterned three dimensional array of dielectric discontinuities must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 1 -11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 -11 of copending Application No. 18/210,834 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming the same subject matter of a magnetic core material for an inductor/transformer . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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) 1- 10 and 14- 21 , as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deRochemont [US2011/0316612 A1] FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . Regarding claim 1, deRochemont discloses a n inductor coil or transformer coils that form low loss inductors and low loss transformers comprise magnetic core materials that have maximal permeability and minimal magnetic core losses by further comprising high energy density electroceramic members that: - minimize Eddy current losses by consisting of any one or all of the flowing atomic elements: nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) titanium (Ti), or chromium (Cr) [para 0079] ; - minimize hysteresis losses by additionally consisting of any one or all of the following atomic elements: lead (Pb), strontium (Sr) and magnesium (Mg) [para 0079] ; - minimize residual magnetic loss by additionally having a microstructure and average grain size less equal or less than 5micrometer [para 0080] ; and - further minimize Eddy current losses by embedding one or more thin amorphous silica layers having thickness [50, 50’]. deRochemont disclose the instant claimed invention except for the specific thickness of the amorphous silica layers . The specific grain size distribution and thickness of the amorphous silica layers would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of facilitating the desired magnetic flux/field and/or permeability, improving insulation and reducing energy loss of the magnetic core Regarding claim 2, deRochemont discloses the high energy density electroceramic members have electrical resistivity ≥10.sup.5 Ω-cm, preferably ≥10.sup.7 Ω-cm [para 0079] . Regarding claim 3, deRochemont discloses higher energies and higher magnetic field strengths are created by introducing dielectric discontinuities by include non-magnetic media within the magnetic core materials to create “air gaps” that allow higher currents to energize the inductor coil or transformer coils before the onset of magnetic saturation [para 0082] . Regarding claim 4, deRochemont discloses the non-magnetic media comprises amorphous silica [para 0079] . Regarding claim 5, deRochemont discloses the inductor coil and transformer coils form a closed magnetic path by means of toroidal geometries [figure 2] that reduce parasitic noise generated by fringing fields and Eddy current losses generated by electromagnetic interactions between magnetic fringing fields leaking out of the magnetic core material and currents in the coil windings [the microstructure of the magnetic core and coils would exhibit this] . Regarding claim 6, deRochemont discloses a layer of non-magnetic material [amorphous silica layers 50, 50’ or 338] is inserted between a coil winding [figures 7B-7C] and a high energy density electroceramic member within the magnetic core materials to minimize fringing fields penetrating into conductive elements of a winding. Regarding claim 7, deRochemont discloses different relative permeability [figure 8B]. Regarding claim 8, deRochemont discloses dielectric discontinuities [amorphous silica layers or gaps] are placed at optimal energy storage locations within the magnetic core material to optimize performance as an energy storing inductor coil or a flyback transformer. Regarding claims 9-10, deRochemont discloses the use of amorphous silica layers in various location s of the magnetic core and/or inductor or flyback devices [figures 1-9]. Regarding claim 14, deRochemont discloses coil windings [240] are encapsulated with enveloping amorphous silica dielectric [242A-242B, para 0101] to enable the inductor coil or transformer coils to sustain very large differential voltage drops. Regarding claim 15, deRochemont discloses high hardness constraining members [62] are located at the center of a coil winding and the high hardness constraining members are enveloped by low resistivity conducting elements having resistivity less than 10.sup.−5 Ω-cm, preferably with resistivity less than 10.sup.−7 Ω-cm. Regarding claim s 16 -17 , deRochemont discloses the constraining members comprise low-CTE ceramic having a coefficient within 25% to 10% of the adjacent dielectric [para 0081] and ceramic layers [51A, 51B, 51C] . The specific number of CTE would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of improving thermal expansion. Regarding claim 18, deRochemont discloses the inductor coil or transformer coils comprise toroidal geometry that forms a magnetic current having a closed path to minimize spurious noise [abstract, figures 2-9] . Regarding claim 19, deRochemont discloses proximity losses and flux jumping losses are reduced by maintaining consistent spacing between coil windings [figures 2, 5B, 5C, 7A-7C and 9] . Regarding claims 20-21, deRochemont discloses interleaved primary and secondary coil windings are used to effectuate turn ratios [para 0077], wherein interleaved primary and secondary coil windings include one or more parallel groupings of windings formed through parallel connection [para 0104-0105 to ring conductor that electrical connects the parallel groupings in series [para 0075, 0105] , while the windings of the other transformer coil is electrically connected in series [para 0075, 0105] . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-13 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. Claims 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1996 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawki Ismail can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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