DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 23 April 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-12 as amended are pending, with claim 12 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 23 April 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleta T. Wilder, “Characterization of Insulation Aging with Power-Dense Environments,” 2018 Electrical Insulation Conference, San Antonio, TX, 17-20 June 2018 (“Wilder”) in view of KR 10-0776641 B1 (“Kang”).
This reference was made of record with applicant’s IDS.
As to claims 1, 2, and 4, Wilder teaches providing a polymeric material (epoxy or silicone, p. 280), and applying an alternating electrical field at 200 kHz and 1 KV/mm (1 MV/m), these latter conditions being within the ranges of claims 2 and 4 respectively. Wilder teaches inducing for 3 hours with electric field (p. 280).
Wilder does not explicitly teach inducing optical or acoustic phonons in the material. However, Wilder teaches the same method as provided by applicant for inducing optical or acoustic phonons, and it is therefore presumed that the method of Wilder produces the same effect.
Wilder does not discuss varying the frequency of the electric field. Kang teaches a similar treatment of polymer materials, and further teaches varying frequency of the electrical field treatment in order to determine effect of different modes of polarization of a material (translation, pp. 11-12). As such, varying electrical field is an obvious modification for observing the effect of alternating electrical field on insulating material as taught by Kang.
As to claim 5, Wilder in view of Kang teaches application of electric field; since a dynamic mechanical field is optional under claim 1, the further limitations of claim 5 is met.
As to claim 7, Wilder in view of Kang does not discuss induced phonon frequency. However, since Wilder teaches the same technique for inducing phonons under the same alternating electric field, it is presumed that the process of Wilder induces phonons of the recited frequency range.
As to claim 9, Wilder in view of Kang does not discuss nanophase separation. However, since Wilder teaches the same method and same material as recited and described in applicant’s specification, it is presumed to induce nanophase separation.
As to claim 10, Wilder in view of Kang does not discuss density. However, since Wilder teaches the same method and same material as recited and described in applicant’s specification, it is presumed to increase the density of the polymer.
As to claim 11, Wilder in view of Kang does not discuss voltage breakdown strength. However, since Wilder teaches the same method and same material as recited and described in applicant’s specification, it is presumed to increase voltage breakdown strength of the polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are now rejected over Wilder in view of Kang, for the reasons set forth 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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights