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 § 103 Claim(s) 1 -8 , 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipate by Uetz et al. 2012/0135819 in view of Evans et al. 2017/0167278. To claim s 1 , 2, 6 , 8 , 15 and 20 , Uetz shows a golf club showing all the common features of a conventional golf club clearly anticipated in his fig. 1 with a composite face base substrate 54 of carbon fiber having a plurality of scorelines 28 [0062] that is suggested as being electroplated [0068]. While the suggested electro plating can be considered to meet the limitations of a metal layer of second metal , he does not discuss his carbon fiber as being metal-coated fibers comprising a first metal. However, the process of attaching metal veils to the outer surface of composites or coating the composite fibers with metal to make them conductive and conducive to electroplating processes appear to be well-known in general by many specified techniques in the art. Evans is one such example that teaches electroplating a metal layer on composite materials using a veil of nickel metal coated fibers [0025] [0036]. While Evans does not list all the types of second metal materials that are commonly electroplated onto such parts , it is considered old and well known to use nickel, chrome or platinum. To have manufactured the composite strike face of Uetz with known method of manufacturing composites by using nickel coated carbon fibers allowing it to be electroplated with chrome as taught by Evans would have been obvious in order to make the face take advantage of the properties of carbon fibers to create a strong and light base and be able to finish it with an electroplating process to give it a chrome metallic appearance. Claim 3 considered met where the veil layer if embedded into the surface of the composite material and being capable of being described as “co-molded”. While no dimensions or areal weights are discussed for the thickness and areal weight of the veil layer, such a dimension and properties as called for in claims 4, 5 and 7 inherently exists. To have selected a thickness and weight of composite material suitable to withstand the desired weight and durability and to provide an optimal base to allow the electroplating to be performed on the composite substrate would have been an obvious matter of combining the prior art elements according to known methods and techniques to yield predictable results. Here a thickness of .5-1.5mm would have been obvious in order to give satisfactory bond strength to the plated metal. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). One skilled in the art of composites lead by Evans would have found it obvious to have selected he thicknesses and weight suitable to optimize the material for its intended purpose and design. Claim(s) 9 and 1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipate by Uetz et al. 2012/0135819 in view of Evans et al. 2017/0167278 and further in view of S cientific Reports (SR)- Multi-Functional Carbon Fibre Composites using Carbon Nanotubes as an Alternative to Polymer Sizing. While the applied art does not discuss carbon nanotubes as called for in claim s 9 and 18 , the addition of such in carbon fiber composites are known. SR teaches that such can be added for polymer sizing. To have added such to a composite striking face as fairly taught by the applied art would have been obvious in order to enhance its electrical and thermal functionality as taught. Claim(s) 10-14 , 16 and 1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipate by Uetz et al. 2012/0135819 in view of Evans et al. 2017/0167278 and furt her in view of Pollitt EP 3,130,460 As to claim 10, 16 and 17, Pollitt teaches the use of a conductive bonding layer to achieve a complete conductive layer [0059] To have added a third metallic layer to the composite face of the combined art would have been obvious in order to provide a complete conductive layer the enhance the electroplating process such as being able to use a single coating layer [0029]. As to claim 11, the inherent thickness of the intermediate layer has not been shown to be critical and would have been an obvious matter of choice to have selected a dimension of less than .05mm to optimize th e desired properties of the final coated product. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The limitations of claims 12-14 are considered met as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 2, 9 where the electroplated second metal layer will inherently have the structural relationship of having the metal-coated fibers of the metal veil layer are exposed to a bottom surface of the metal layer. Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipate by Uetz et al. 2012/0135819 in view of Evans et al. 2017/0167278 and further i n view of Lichtenstein et al. 6,624,383 While the above prior art does not appear to discuss a step of wearing away a top surface of the metal veil, Lichtenstein teaches in such composites exposing the fibers underneath would have been obvious in order to improve the contact surface. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Pierce whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4414 and E mail address is bill.pierce@USPTO.gov. For emergency assistance, supervisory assistance can be obtained with Nicholas Weiss 571-270-1775 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, communication via email at the above address may be found more effective. Where current PTO internet usage policy does not permit an examiner to initiate communication via email, such are at the discretion of the applicant. However, without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me by responding to this inquiry by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /WILLIAM M PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711