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 as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 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 Scientific Reports (SR)- Multi-Functional Carbon Fibre Composites using Carbon Nanotubes as an Alternative to Polymer Sizing as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16 and 17 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 Pollitt EP 3,130,460 as set forth in the previous office action.
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 in view of Lichtenstein et al. 6,624,383 as set forth in the previous office action.
Conclusion
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Uetz in view of Evans and further in view of Scientific Reports applicant merely reprints the claim and argues that such fails to fairly teach the limitation of, "a metal veil layer on top of the base layer, wherein the metal veil layer comprises metal veils, wherein the metal veils comprise metal- coated fibers, and wherein the metal-coated fibers comprise a first metal; and a metal layer on top of the metal veil layer, wherein the metal layer comprises a second metal."
Applicants do not appear to dispute the application of Uetz or Evans in the office action. Instead, he argues that a POSA would not have been motivated to look for Evans much less combine Evans with Uetz.
This is clearly unfounded where Evans teaches what appears to be a common an well-known practice of applying metal layers over composites for decorative purposes [0003]. One clearly looking to decorate a club like Evans would expect success where the process of Uetz is so durable it can be used on composite fan blades.
Applicant falsely argues that Uetz only discusses "electroplat[ing] directly on the substrate 54 at" ¶68 and is otherwise silent as to electroplating. Instead at [0004] he discusses, “recent developments in the golf club head design” in coating and plating polymer materials and [0049] further discusses, “electrolytic plating process”. One looking for ways to apply such plating to composite substrates such as that used by Uetz would surely consider how other composite articles durably apply such as is taught by Evans. As such, the grounds for rejection is not found to be in error.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 William Pierce whose telephone number is (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
Prosecution Insights