DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/KR2022/002029 filed 02/10/2022 . Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. KR 10-2021-0026557 filed 2/26/2021 , which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the process is performed at least two times to grow the metal oxide nanorods to have at least a particular length. However, it would not be clear how “to have at least a particular length” limits the scope of the claim. In particular, any metal oxide nanorod has a length, although it would not be clear what length is within the scope of “particular”. No length is provided in the present invention. Absent such a description, one of ordinary skill would have to undertake extensive hit or miss testing to determine the full scope of the genus of “a particular length” , and therefore is indicative of the fact that a pplicant did not provide adequate disclosure such that one skilled in the art would understand what amount of length falls within the scope of “a particular length”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. 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 , 3-4, 6, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Young Bin et al. ( KR 101919496 ) . A translation of KR 101919496 is provided with this office action. Regarding claim 1 : Young Bin is directed to a plastic resin composite comprising A fiber composite including a fiber and zinc oxide nanowires on the surface of the fiber (abstract Young Bin ) and A plastic matrix interlocked with the fiber composite. Specifically, Young Bin teaches a polymer matrix and transferring the fibers in the polyme r. Regarding claim 3 : Zinc oxide is disclosed. Regarding claim 4 : The resin includes polycarbonate, and polypropylene. Regarding claim 6 : The method for preparing the composite comprises: Performing a plasma treatment on the surface of the fiber, Forming a nucleus of metal oxide on the plasma treated surface Forming the metal oxide nanorods from the nucleus of metal oxide on the surface of the fiber, and Mixing the fiber having the m e tal oxide nanorods formed thereon with the plastic resin (see zinc oxide seed formation and Formation of zinc oxide nanostructures , as well as subsequent mixing with the polymer of Yong Bin). Regarding claim 8 : The plasma is driven at a power of 800 – 900 W. While a frequency and flow rate are not mentioned, even 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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, it is clear the product of claim 1 is disclosed by Young Bin , as discussed previously. Regarding claim 9 : Zinc oxide is disclosed. Regarding claim 10 : Z inc oxide seed solution may be formed using zinc acetate dihydrate, ethanol, and sodium hydroxide. Regarding claim 11 : The working example include zinc acetate 65 ˚C for 30 minutes. While 30 minutes is slightly outside the claimed 10-20 minutes , even 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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, it is clear the product of claim 1 is disclosed by Young Bin, as discussed previously. Regarding claim 12 : The zinc oxide growth solution may be formed using zinc nitrate hexahydrate, hexamethylenetetramine, and deionized water. Regarding claim 13 : The zinc oxide nanorods are grown at 90 ˚ C for 4 hours in the working examples. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 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. Claim s 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a FILLIN "Insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis." \d "[ 2 ]" ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Young Bin. Regarding claims 17-18 : Young Bin doesn’t mention a tensile strength of the composite. However, the composite produced in Young Bin is substantially identical to the composite produced in the instant invention, as discussed previously. Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Hence, Young Bin at least suggests or anticipates a composite having a tensile strength within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. A rejection under 35 USC 102/103 is proper w hen the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02. 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young Bin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. ( US 2020/0231768 ). Regarding claim 5: Young Bin does not mention an amount of polymer matrix. Lim is directed to a polymer composite comprising modified carbon fiber. The modified carbon fiber is used in an amount of 20-30% by volume of the fiber composite ([0017] Lim). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected this amount of the modified fibers in the composite of Young Bin to produce a composite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected an amount of fiber composite within the scope of claim 5. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young Bin. Regarding claim 1 6 : Young Bin doesn’t specifically mention the process is performed at least two times. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the process at least two times to grow the metal oxide nanorods to have at least a particular length. Claim 14-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young Bin as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. ( US 2021/0061992 ). Regarding claim 14 : Young Bin doesn’t mention adding glass balloons. Tanaka is directed to a composite comprising a thermoplastic resin and glass balloons. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have added glass balloons to the composition of Young Bin for reduced specific gravity of the molded product of the resin composition ([0073] Tanaka), which are made into a wide variety of molded products ([0164] Tanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included glass bubbles to the composition of Young Bin . With regards to adding the glass bubbles after mixing the fiber having the metal oxide nanorods formed thereon with the plastic resin, it is well settled that “[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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regarding claim 15 : Tanaka discloses the composition comprises 10-30 mass% glass balloons per 100% mass thermoplastic resin (abstract Tanaka). A filler component can be present in an amount of 0-50% by mass with respect to the total mass of the resin composition ([0144]-[0147] Tanaka). Hence, a composition comprising 20 mass% glass balloons per 100% thermoplastic resin and 30 wt% filler of the fiber composite results in a composition comprising about 13 wt% fiber composite, 67 wt% plastic resin, and 20 wt% glass bubbles. Given the amounts of Young Bin in view of Tanaka fall squarely within the claimed ranges, it is clear the amounts at least overlap. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson , 315 F .3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected these amounts in Young Bin to produce a variety of molded products ([0164] Tanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a polymer, glass bubbles, and fiber composite in claimed amounts in the composition of Young Bin . Regarding claim 19 : Tanaka is directed to a composite comprising a thermoplastic resin and glass balloons. Regarding claim 20 : Tanaka discloses the composition comprises 10-30 mass% glass balloons per 100% mass thermoplastic resin (abstract Tanaka). A filler component can be present in an amount of 0-50% by mass with respect to the total mass of the resin composition ([0144]-[0147] Tanaka). Hence, a composition comprising 20 mass% glass balloons per 100% thermoplastic resin and 30 wt% filler of the fiber composite results in a composition comprising about 13 wt% fiber composite, 67 wt% plastic resin, and 20 wt% glass bubbles. Given the amounts of Young Bin in view of Tanaka fall squarely within the claimed ranges, it is clear the amounts at least overlap. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson , 315 F .3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected these amounts in Young Bin to produce a variety of molded products ([0164] Tanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a polymer, glass bubbles, and fiber composite in claimed amounts in the composition of Young Bin . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim s 1- 4, 6-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sodano et al. ( US 2011/0224330 ) . Regarding claim 1 : Sodano is directed to a plastic resin composite comprising A fiber composite including a fiber and zinc oxide nanowires on the surface of the fiber (abstract Sodano) and A plastic matrix interlocked with the fiber composite. Specifically, Sodano teaches a polymer matrix and fibers embedded in the polymer matrix ([0017]-[0018]) . Given the present invention does not define an aspect ratio or length of nanorods, it is the Examiners position the nanowires of Sodano are equivalent to nanorods . No length of the nanorods is provided by the present invention. Regarding claim 2 : The fibers include any reinforcing fibers suitable for use in composite materials, including glass fiber and aramid fiber ([0025]). Regarding claim 3 : The metal oxide is zinc oxide. Regarding claim 4 : Polymers suitable for the matrix include a variety of materials including polyolefins, although polypropylene is not specifically mentioned. However, given that polyethylene and polypropylene are well known polyolefins in the art, it is reasonable to conclude one skilled in the art would i m mediately envisag e p olypropylene as a polyolefin mentioned by Sodano. Regarding claim 6 : Sodano doesn’t mention the claimed product by process limitations of claim 6. However, even 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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, it is clear the product of claim 1 is disclosed by Sodano, as discussed previously. Regarding claim 7 : The fibers include any reinforcing fibers suitable for use in composite materials, including glass fiber and aramid fiber ([0025]). Regarding claim 8 : A plasma treatment performed at a power of 900-1100 W, frequency of 40-60 kHz and flow rate of 40-60 sccm. However, even 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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, it is clear the product of claim 1 is disclosed by Sodano, as discussed previously. Regarding claim 9 : The metal oxide is zinc oxide. Regarding claim 10 : The metal oxide nucleus is formed using an ethanol and zinc acetate ([0026]). Regarding claim 11: The metal oxide nucleus is formed at 55 C for 30 minutes. Further, even 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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, it is clear the product of claim 1 is disclosed by Sodano, as discussed previously. Regarding claim 12 : The metal oxide nanorods are formed using zinc nitrate hydrate and hexamethenetetramine ([0026]). Regarding claim 13 : The metal oxide nanorods can be formed at 90 C for 6-8 hours ([0029]). Regarding claim 16 : The nanorods are gown as a function of growth time and the length of the ZnO increase with growth time ([0043]) (equivalent to performed at least two times to grow the metal oxide to have at least a particular length). Further, even 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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, it is clear the product of claim 1 is disclosed by Sodano, as discussed previously. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 Claim s 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a FILLIN "Insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis." \d "[ 2 ]" ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sodano. Regarding claims 17-18 : Sodano doesn’t mention a tensile strength of the composite. However, the composite produced in Sodano is substantially identical to the composite produced in the instant invention, as discussed previously. Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Hence, Sodano at least suggests or anticipates a composite having a tensile strength within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. A rejection under 35 USC 102/103 is proper w hen the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. ( US 2020/0231768 ). Regarding claim 5: Sodano does not mention an amount of polymer matrix. Lim is directed to a polymer composite comprising modified carbon fiber . The modified carbon fiber is used in an amount of 20-30% by volume of the fiber composite ([0017] Lim). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected this amount of the modified fibers in the composite of Sodano to produce a composite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected an amount of fiber composite within the scope of claim 5. Claim 14 -15 , 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodano as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. ( US 2021/0061992 ). Regarding claim 14 : Sodano doesn’t mention adding glass balloons. Tanaka is directed to a composite comprising a thermoplastic resin and glass balloons. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have added glass balloons to the composition of Sodano for reduced specific gravity of the molded product of the resin composition ([0073] Tanaka), which are made into a wide variety of molded products ([0164] Tanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included glass bubbles to the composition of Sodano. With regards to adding the glass bubbles after mixing the fiber having the metal oxide nanorods formed thereon with the plastic resin, it is well settled that “[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.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regarding claim 15 : Tanaka discloses the composition comprises 10-30 mass% glass balloons per 100% mass thermoplastic resin (abstract Tanaka). A filler component can be present in an amount of 0-50% by mass with respect to the total mass of the resin composition ([0144]-[0147] Tanaka). Hence, a composition comprising 20 mass% glass balloons per 100% thermoplastic resin and 30 wt% filler of the fiber composite results in a composition comprising about 13 wt% fiber composite, 67 wt% plastic resin, and 20 wt% glass bubbles. Given the amounts of Sodano in view of Tanaka fall squarely within the claimed ranges, it is clear the amounts at least overlap. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson , 315 F .3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected these amounts in Sodano to produce a variety of molded products ([0164] Tanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a polymer, glass bubbles, and fiber composite in claimed amounts in the composition of Sodano. Regarding claim 19 : Tanaka is directed to a composite comprising a thermoplastic resin and glass balloons. Regarding claim 20 : Tanaka discloses the composition comprises 10-30 mass% glass balloons per 100% mass thermoplastic resin (abstract Tanaka). A filler component can be present in an amount of 0-50% by mass with respect to the total mass of the resin composition ([0144]-[0147] Tanaka). Hence, a composition comprising 20 mass% glass balloons per 100% thermoplastic resin and 30 wt% filler of the fiber composite results in a composition comprising about 13 wt% fiber composite, 67 wt% plastic resin, and 20 wt% glass bubbles. Given the amounts of Sodano in view of Tanaka fall squarely within the claimed ranges, it is clear the amounts at least overlap. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson , 315 F .3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected these amounts in Sodano to produce a variety of molded products ([0164] Tanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a polymer, glass bubbles, and fiber composite in claimed amounts in the composition of Sodano. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3514 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone . 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 Lanee 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. /ROBERT T BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764