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. Claims 1-12 are pending. Election/Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-11, drawn to methods of treatment of a polymer material, classified in C08J3/00. II. Claim 12, drawn to an epoxy thermoset, classified in C08L63/00. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the process as claimed can be applied to any polymer other than epoxy thermosets , for example silicones (see discussion of Wilder, below) . Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The two groupings are in entirely different classifications, and as such, the distinction between them is recognized in the art , such as by classification . There is little likelihood that art relating to electrical or mechanical treatment of polymers in general is applicable to epoxy thermosets having specific water absorption, and vice versa . Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Joseph Grunkemeyer on 2 June 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of inducing by application of alternating electric field on one hand, and inducing by application of dynamic mechanical field on the other. The species are independent or distinct because they are entirely different physical processes. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, all claims are generic (i.e., none of the claims require one species or the other) . There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: searching will require search in entirely different classifications of art (ultrasonic wave treatment , such as in B29C71/04 versus electric field treatment in B29C71/0081), and search terminology . The art applicable to one species will, in general, not be applicable to the other . Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species , including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election. The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. During a telephone conversation with Joseph Grunkemeyer on 5 November 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of inducing by electric field. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. 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 5 , 7,and 9-11 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. Claim 5 recites “wherein dynamic mechanical field . . .,” where it is unclear whether this is the same dynamic mechanical field recite in claim 1; likewise, claim 7 recites “wherein phonons” without indicating whether these are the same phonons recited in claim 1. The Office recommends using “said” or “the” before each. Claims 9-11 each recite “the polymer”; it is unclear in each case whether this refers to the polymeric material recited in claim 1, or another polymer. For the purpose of applying the prior art, it is presumed this refers to the polymeric material of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aleta T. Wilder, “Characterization of Insulation Aging with Power-Dense Environments,” 2018 Electrical Insulation Conference, San Antonio, TX, 17-20 June 2018 (“Wilder”) . 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 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. As to claim 3, Wilder does not discuss varying frequency over time. However, Wilder also teaches applying 35 kHz ultrasound, thus a dynamic mechanical field, to the same polymers, which is also a method provided by applicant for inducing optical or acoustic phonons. Since electric field is optional under claim 1, Wilder meets claim 3. As to claims 5 and 6, Wilder teaches application of electric field; since a dynamic mechanical field is optional under claim 1, the further limitations of claims 5 and 6 are met. It is noted that Wilder also teaches ultrasonic treatment of 35 kHz (p. 280), which is within the range of claim 5. As to claim 7, Wilder 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 8, Wilder teaches inducing for 3 hours with electric field (p. 280). As to claim 9, Wilder 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 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 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. Claim(s) 1-3 , 5- 7, and 9- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-0776641 B1 (“Kang”). A partial machine translation is enclosed. As to claim s 1 and 2 , Kang teaches providing a polymeric material (translation, p. 8). Kang teaches applying alternating voltage to form an alternating electric field (translation, p. 8). This includes frequencies in the recited range of claim 2 (translation, p. 4). While Kang does not discuss inducing phonons, this is the process set forth by applicant for producing phonons, and as such is presumed to induce phonons. As to claim 3, Kang teaches varying the frequency of the electric field (translation, p. 11). As to claims 5 and 6, Kang teaches application of alternating electrical field. The dynamic mechanical field is optional under claim 1. As to claim 7, Kang does not discuss induced phonon frequency. However, since Kang teaches the same technique for inducing phonons under the same alternating electric field, it is presumed that the process of Kang induces phonons of the recited frequency range. As to claim 9, Kang does not discuss nanophase separation. However, since Kang 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, Kang does not discuss density. However, since Kang 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, Kang does not discuss voltage breakdown strength. However, since Kang 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4888 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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