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 .
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because an accompanying clean version of the specification was not submitted with the specification amendment filed 7/24/2025.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittwer (US11508495), in view of Klee et al. (US4627197), hereinafter Klee, as further evidenced by Winter (US6548576), and in further view of Kirschner (US5509971).
Regarding claim 1, Wittwer discloses a method of forming contact surfaces conductor busbars, the method comprising: covering all conductive surfaces of the conductive busbars with an insulating material (Claim 1, where insulating epoxy corresponds to an insulating material) so as to form an insulation surface (Claim 1, Fig. 1 element 25), the conductive busbars adapted to use in energy distribution systems (Claim 1); and peel the insulation material from the conductive surfaces (Claim 1, where "mechanically disassociating the subject area of the coating of rubbery insulating epoxy from the surface of the bus bar conductor" corresponds to peel the insulation material from the conductive surfaces).
Wittwer fails to disclose immersing the insulating surface in nitrogen gas by immersing the insulation surface for five seconds so as to bring a surface temperature of the insulation surface to between -50°C and -70°C; and the peeling is performed by sandblasting the insulation surface on a stainless steel grid subsequent to the step of immersing, the blasting being by spraying metal granules onto the insulation surface, the sandblasting being with compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 bar.
Klee is also concerned with removing an outer layer from a workpiece and teaches immersing the insulating surface in nitrogen gas by immersing the insulation surface for a set amount of time so as to bring a surface temperature of the insulation surface to an embriddlement temperature (2:39-42, 5:52-58, 7:1-22, where the insulation surface being within the chamber corresponds to immersing it in nitrogen gas, "a short timed prechill period" corresponds to a set amount of time, and where "a preset very low temperature level…considerably below the glass transition temperature" corresponds to a temperature which causes embriddlement of the insulation surface), and the peeling is performed by sandblasting by spraying metal granules onto the insulation surface (Abstract and 5:49-52, where blasting corresponds to sandblasting and where steel shot corresponds to metal granules). It 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 to modify the method of Wittwer to immerse the insulation surface in nitrogen gas for a set amount of time in order to bring the surface temperature to a temperature which causes embriddlement of the insulation surface and to perform peeling of the insulation surface by sandblasting with metal granules, as taught by Klee, because Klee teaches that this technique is known in the art (1:10-15 and 1:20-39).
Wittwer, as modified, fails to disclose immersing the insulation surface for five seconds so as to bring the surface temperature of the insulation surface to a value between -50°C and -70°C, and the sandblasting being with compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 bar. However, according to Applicant’s specification filed 3/7/2023, the insulating material is a generic epoxy material (see page 5 line 15 of Appliant’s specification), and the temperature which causes embriddlement of at least one epoxy material is known to be -65°C, as evidenced by Winter (1:47-53) and -65°C is within the claimed range. With the temperature of embriddlement set to -65°C, Wittwer, as modified, then yields bringing the surface temperature to a value between -50°C and -70°C (Klee, 7:12-15, where the temperature being below the glass transition temperature would be -65°C for at least one epoxy material). Examiner further finds that while Wittwer, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose immersing the insulation surface for five seconds, pursuant MPEP2112.02, the apparatus of Wittwer, as modified, in its normal and usual operation would necessarily perform the immersion of the insulation surface for five seconds because Applicant’s specification only requires that any epoxy material being immersed in nitrogen gas of unknown temperature for approximately five seconds will necessarily make the insulation surface temperature be within the claimed range, and since Wittwer, as modified, discloses an epoxy material being immersed to bring the insulation surface temperature within the claimed range, then the time for immersion must be five seconds according to applicant’s disclosure. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any criticality for the immersion being exactly five seconds as Applicant’s disclosure only discloses that the immersion time is approximately five seconds.
Wittwer, as modified, fails to disclose the sandblasting being with compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 bar.
Kirschner is also concerned with removing an outer layer from a workpiece and teaches sandblasting being with compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 bar (1:27-49, where “dry blasting” corresponds to sandblasting, “pressurized air” corresponds to compressed air, and 6.5 bar (i.e. 94.3 psi) is within the range of “30 to 150 psi”). It 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 to modify the method of Wittwer, as modified, to perform the sandblasting with compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 bar, as taught by Kirschner, because Kirschner teaches that sandblasting with compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 bar is well known in the art (i.e. 1:27-49: “ dry blasting which involves directing the abrasive particles to a surface by means of pressurized air typically ranging from 30 to 150 psi…have been used”) to be used “to dislodge previously applied coatings” (1:35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 3 is in condition for allowance based on the current amendments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittwer (US11508495), in view of Klee et al. (US4627197), hereinafter Klee, as further evidenced by Winter (US6548576), and in further view of Kirschner (US5509971). See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723