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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm.” However, this range is not supported by the originally filed specification. There is no explicit teaching in the originally filed specification that the metal layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm and there is no explicit teaching of a range for any thickness of any of the layers in the originally filed specification. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-4, 21-22, 25-28 and 31 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation of “wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm.” However, this range is not supported by the originally filed specification. There is no explicit teaching in the originally filed specification that the metal layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm and there is no explicit teaching of a range for any thickness of any of the layers in the originally filed specification. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 6-10, 23-24, 29 and 32 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 5.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 30 recites the limitation of “wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm.” However, this range is not supported by the originally filed specification. There is no explicit teaching in the originally filed specification that the metal layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm and there is no explicit teaching of a range for any thickness of any of the layers in the originally filed specification. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 33 is rejected based on their dependency from claim 30.
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.
Claims 1-4, 21, 25-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Bruton et al. (US 2019/0233946) and McCrea et al. (US 8,247,050).
Regarding claim 1, Hojjati teaches a composite substrate comprising a mesh layer and a composite material layer, wherein said composite substrate can be coated in metal and then be used as an electro-thermal heating element (“a metallized polymer substrate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymeric layer (“a polymer substrate having a surface”) (Paragraph [0105]). The mesh layer includes an adhesive layer and a mesh material wherein the adhesive layer adheres the mesh material to the composite material layer and the mesh material is a metal woven wire which protects the composite material layer during coating processes and helps anchor the metal coating to the composite substrate (“a bond layer disposed on the polymer substrate surface, the bond layer comprising a hybrid structure comprising a polymer component and a metal component”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). A metal coating layer may further be provided on the composite substrate and may be formed from any suitable metal (“a metal layer disposed on the bond layer”) (Paragraphs [0119]-[0122]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal layer having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. However, Hojjati does teach the use of the composites in aerospace industries or energy industries (Paragraph [0195]).
Bruton teaches cold spray metallic coating methods which provide improved protections to aircraft components and may include a polymer substrate which is provided with a titanium coating (Paragraphs [0002]-[0005]; [0047]-[0048]). The titanium coatings may be provided as additional or secondary coatings over a different metal layer as illustrated in figure 2 (Paragraph [0061]). The coatings are applied to components or parts of aerospace vehicles (Paragraph [0019]).
McCrea teaches applying metallic coatings to polymeric substrates in order to protect the substrates from erosion and impact damage (Col. 1, Lines 7-15). The substrates may be used for providing aerospace vehicles with the improved protection (Col. 4, Lines 60-67). The metal barrier coatings additionally are taught to have thicknesses of 10 microns to 2.5 cm (Col. 7, Lines 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composite substrates such that the metal coatings of Hojjati are further provided with additional metallic layers in order to provide improved protection to the polymer substrates as taught by Bruton and wherein the resulting thicknes of the first layer for improved adhesion to the carbon fiber reinforced layer further provided with additional metallic barrier layers results in a thickness of 10 microns to 2.5 cm for the further improved protection as taught by McCrea wherein each of the above references teaches these composites being used for aerospace vehicles.
Regarding claim 2, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymer.
Regarding claim 3, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes an adhesive layer which permeates the mesh material, which also may be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“wherein the polymer component is in the form of a polymer film that is disposed over the surface of the polymer substrate, wherein the polymer film layer is homogenous and the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film ”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]).
Regarding **claim 21**, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the mesh material is metal woven wire.
Regarding claim 4, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 21. The starting material for the metal layer is a metal power which is spray deposited (Paragraphs [0161]-[0162]).
Regarding claim 25, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 21. As discussed above, the mesh material is woven wire (“wherein the metal mesh used to form the metal mesh layer has an opening size”) and the metal layer formed from a metal powder (“a plurality of metal particles having a powder diameter is used to form the metal layer”).
Regarding claim 26, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 25.
Hojjati is silent with respect to an opening ratio between the metal mesh opening size and the metal particle powder diameter of from about 1 to 3.
However, Hojjati teaches the mesh size of the mesh material being sized in order to allow the adhesive layer to be able to penetrate and hold the metal mesh while also protecting the composite material layer from the metal coating during the anchoring of the metal coating (Paragraphs [0109]-[0111]). Additionally, the size of the metal powder for the metal coating layer is chosen based on porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency (Paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to optimize the mesh size and the size of the metal powders to have an opening ratio between the metal mesh opening size and the metal particle powder diameter of from about 1 to 3 such that the selection of the mesh size and the particle size optimizes various properties of the metal coat anchoring to the composite material substrate including porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 25.
Hojjati is silent with respect to an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles.
However, Hojjati teaches the mesh size of the mesh material being sized in order to allow the adhesive layer to be able to penetrate and hold the metal mesh while also protecting the composite material layer from the metal coating during the anchoring of the metal coating (Paragraphs [0109]-[0111]). Additionally, the size of the metal powder for the metal coating layer is chosen based on porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency (Paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to optimize the mesh size and the size of the metal powders to have an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles such that the selection of the mesh size and the particle size optimizes various properties of the metal coat anchoring to the composite material substrate including porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 28, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 21. As discussed above, the mesh material is woven wire.
Regarding claim 31, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the resulting thickness of the metallic barrier layers is from 10 microns to 2.5 cm.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Bruton et al. (US 2019/0233946) and McCrea et al. (US 8,247,050) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2020/0115044).
Regarding claim 22, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 4. Hojjati teaches any known step may be used to deposit the metal coating (Paragraph [0164]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal powder being a low-temperature metal spray deposited layer. However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation which must be considered to the extend that the final product is materially changed. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the methods of low-temperature spray deposition only results in a metal coating layer which is already required by claim 1 and which is taught by Hojjati as discussed above.
Bruton teaches cold spray metallic coating methods which provide improved protections to aircraft components and may include a polymer substrate which is provided with a titanium coating (Paragraphs [0002]-[0005]; [0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal coatings of Hojjati, which may be formed from any suitable metal, such that the metal is titanium which is further taught to provide improved protection to aircrafts as taught by Bruton.
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal mesh material being aluminum.
Huber teaches the protection of aerodynamic surfaces from erosion (Paragraph [0003]). The method includes applying a screen formed from aluminum to a leading edge with an adhesive layer wherein the screen allows for the largest practical surface area for an erosion coating to be applied (Paragraphs [0007]; [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal mesh of Hojjati from aluminum as taught by Huber which teaches an identical use of the screen for the application of a coating and the aluminum screen provides the largest practical surface area for the application of a coating.
Claims 5-10, 23-24, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Bruton et al. (US 2019/0233946) and McCrea et al. (US 8,247,050).
Regarding claim 5, Hojjati teaches a composite substrate comprising a mesh layer and a composite material layer, wherein said composite substrate can be coated in metal and then be used as an electro-thermal heating element (“a metallized polymer substrate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymeric layer (“a carbon fiber polymer substrate having a surface”) (Paragraph [0105]). The mesh layer includes an adhesive layer and a mesh material wherein the adhesive layer adheres the mesh material to the composite material layer and the mesh material is a metal woven wire which protects the composite material layer during coating processes and helps anchor the metal coating to the composite substrate (“a bond layer disposed on the polymer substrate surface, the bond layer comprising a hybrid structure comprising a polymer component and a metal component”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). The mesh layer may also be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]). A metal coating layer may further be provided on the composite substrate and may be formed from any suitable metal powder (“metal particles forming a metallized layer on the bond layer”) (Paragraphs [0119]-[0122]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal layer having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. However, Hojjati does teach the use of the composites in aerospace industries or energy industries (Paragraph [0195]).
Bruton teaches cold spray metallic coating methods which provide improved protections to aircraft components and may include a polymer substrate which is provided with a titanium coating (Paragraphs [0002]-[0005]; [0047]-[0048]). The titanium coatings may be provided as additional or secondary coatings over a different metal layer, such as aluminum, as illustrated in figure 2 (Paragraphs [0011]; [0061]). The coatings are applied to components or parts of aerospace vehicles (Paragraph [0019]).
McCrea teaches applying metallic coatings to polymeric substrates in order to protect the substrates from erosion and impact damage (Col. 1, Lines 7-15). The substrates may be used for providing aerospace vehicles with the improved protection (Col. 4, Lines 60-67). The metal barrier coatings additionally are taught to have thicknesses of 10 microns to 2.5 cm (Col. 7, Lines 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composite substrates such that the metal coatings of Hojjati are further provided with additional metallic layers in order to provide improved protection to the polymer substrates as taught by Bruton and wherein the resulting thicknes of the first layer for improved adhesion to the carbon fiber reinforced layer further provided with additional metallic barrier layers results in a thickness of 10 microns to 2.5 cm for the further improved protection as taught by McCrea wherein each of the above references teaches these composites being used for aerospace vehicles.
Regarding claim 6, Hojjati teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the first layer of material over the bond layer may be aluminum powders, as taught by Bruton.
Regarding claim 7, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes only the adhesive layer and the mesh material (“does not include aluminum filler particles”).
Regarding claim 8, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the mesh layer is provided to sufficiently allow adhesion to the composite material layer and anchor the metal coating layer, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being disposed over an entirety of the bond layer polymer film (Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the mesh layer includes an adhesive layer which permeates the mesh material, which also may be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“wherein the metal mesh is disposed at a partial depth in to the bond layer polymer film layer such that a portion of the metal mesh is exposed at a distance above a surface of the polymer film layer”) (Paragraph [0107]-[0108]; [0150]).
Regarding claim 10, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the metal coating is a metal powder which is anchored to the mesh layer.
Regarding claim 23, Hojjati teaches the composite susbtrates as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the mesh material is metal.
Regarding claim 24, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 10. Hojjati teaches any known step may be used to deposit the metal coating (Paragraph [0164]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal powder being a low-temperature metal spray deposited layer. However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation which must be considered to the extend that the final product is materially changed. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the methods of low-temperature spray deposition only results in a metal coating layer which is already required by claim 1 and which is taught by Hojjati as discussed above.
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal powders being titanium powders.
Bruton teaches cold spray metallic coating methods which provide improved protections to aircraft components and may include a polymer substrate which is provided with a titanium coating (Paragraphs [0002]-[0005]; [0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metal coatings of Hojjati, which may be formed from any suitable metal, such that the metal is titanium which is further taught to provide improved protection to aircrafts as taught by Bruton.
Regarding claim 29, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the mesh material is metal woven wire.
Regarding claim 32, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the resulting thickness of the metallic barrier layers is from 10 microns to 2.5 cm.
Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati et al. (US 2021/0360746) in view of Bruton et al. (US 2019/0233946) and McCrea et al. (US 8,247,050).
Regarding claim 30, Hojjati teaches a composite substrate comprising a mesh layer and a composite material layer, wherein said composite substrate can be coated in metal and then be used as an electro-thermal heating element (“a metallized polymer substrate”) (Paragraph [0001]). The composite material layer may be a carbon fiber reinforced polymeric layer (“a carbon fiber polymer substrate having a surface”) (Paragraph [0105]). The mesh layer includes an adhesive layer and a mesh material wherein the adhesive layer adheres the mesh material to the composite material layer and the mesh material is a metal woven wire which protects the composite material layer during coating processes and helps anchor the metal coating to the composite substrate (“a bond layer disposed on the polymer substrate surface, the bond layer comprising a hybrid structure comprising a polymer component and a metal component”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). The mesh layer may also be further roughened in order to expose the mesh material allowing the metal layer to be further anchored (“the metal component is disposed over and in contact with the polymer film”) (Paragraphs [0107]-[0108]; [0150]). A metal coating layer may further be provided on the composite substrate and may be formed from any suitable metal powder (“metal particles forming a metallized layer on the bond layer”) (Paragraphs [0119]-[0122]).
Hojjati is silent with respect to an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles.
However, Hojjati teaches the mesh size of the mesh material being sized in order to allow the adhesive layer to be able to penetrate and hold the metal mesh while also protecting the composite material layer from the metal coating during the anchoring of the metal coating (Paragraphs [0109]-[0111]). Additionally, the size of the metal powder for the metal coating layer is chosen based on porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency (Paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to optimize the mesh size and the size of the metal powders to have an opening ratio being defined by the metal mesh opening size being less than about ten times a mean powder diameter of the plurality of metal particles such that the selection of the mesh size and the particle size optimizes various properties of the metal coat anchoring to the composite material substrate including porosity, oxidation, uniformity and deposition efficiency. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hojjati is silent with respect to the metal layer having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. However, Hojjati does teach the use of the composites in aerospace industries or energy industries (Paragraph [0195]).
Bruton teaches cold spray metallic coating methods which provide improved protections to aircraft components and may include a polymer substrate which is provided with a titanium coating (Paragraphs [0002]-[0005]; [0047]-[0048]). The titanium coatings may be provided as additional or secondary coatings over a different metal layer as illustrated in figure 2 (Paragraph [0061]). The coatings are applied to components or parts of aerospace vehicles (Paragraph [0019]).
McCrea teaches applying metallic coatings to polymeric substrates in order to protect the substrates from erosion and impact damage (Col. 1, Lines 7-15). The substrates may be used for providing aerospace vehicles with the improved protection (Col. 4, Lines 60-67). The metal barrier coatings additionally are taught to have thicknesses of 10 microns to 2.5 cm (Col. 7, Lines 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composite substrates such that the metal coatings of Hojjati are further provided with additional metallic layers in order to provide improved protection to the polymer substrates as taught by Bruton and wherein the resulting thicknes of the first layer for improved adhesion to the carbon fiber reinforced layer further provided with additional metallic barrier layers results in a thickness of 10 microns to 2.5 cm for the further improved protection as taught by McCrea wherein each of the above references teaches these composites being used for aerospace vehicles.
Regarding claim 33, Hojjati teaches the composite substrates as discussed above with respect to claim 30. As discussed above, the resulting thickness of the metallic barrier layers is from 10 microns to 2.5 cm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 09/24/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-25, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been considered and are persuasive.
On pages 13-25, applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the amendment of “wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm.” The amendment has support from the Appendix of provisional application 63/354,225 and annotated figure 15B.
The examiner first concedes in that none of the cited references teaches a metal layer having this specific thickness. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made further in view of Burton and McCrea such that Burton teaches the application of additional metal layers for impact protection improvement. McCrea similarly teaches this and those metal layers having a thickness from 10 microns to 2.5 cm, overlapping with the claimed range. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first metal barrier layer would have the improved adhesion as taught by Hojjati and the additional layers of Burton and McCrea would provide the improved protection having a total thickness of 10 microns to 2.5 cm.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that a 35 U.S.C 112(a), written description, rejection is necessary such that there is no explicit teaching of a metal layer having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm in the originally filed specification. Furthermore, the only teaching of a metal layer thickness is 3 mm in the appendix of the provisional application 63/354,225. Additionally, while the applicant may rely on figures for support of an amendment, figure 15B cannot be used to support the amendment of “wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm such that the figure is not straight on and is provided at an angle, which would skew the resulting “thickness.” Ultimately, there is no description of a metal layer thickness in the originally filed specification, with the exception of the 3 mm, argued by the applicant and a 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claims 1, 5 and 30 is provided.
The current rejection is made FINAL.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights