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 § 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 s 1-15 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. Regarding claim 1 , the limitation “bonded” is not clearly defined. Is it chemically bonded? Or is the plastic resin merely in contact with the fiber composite ? The specification does not seem to give much guidance. In the spirit of the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner will construe “bonded” as meaning in contact with each other . Regarding claim 4 , please amend the list using standard Markush group language. For example, the claim should read “the plastic resin comprises a one or more resin (s) selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polycarbonate (PC), polyalkylene carbonate and polypropylene (PP)” . Regarding claim 15 , it is noted that the number 23.8 MPa in this claim seems to come from a Comparative example in Figure 5. While applicant has support for this number as an originally filed claim, it is noted that perhaps this is not the intended recited value. The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kakizaki (US 3,855,175) . Regarding claim 1 , Kakizaki teaches a plastic resin composition comprising: a fiber composite including a fiber and a silane provided on the surface of the fiber and a plastic resin bonded to the fiber composite (Table 1 , No 2-4 ). Regarding claim 2 , Kakizaki teaches that the fiber is a glass fiber (Table 1). Regarding claim 4 , Kakizaki teaches that the plastic resin is polypropylene (Table 1). Regarding claim 6 - 9 and 11 - 12 , as this claim is a product-by-process claim, patentability of said claim is based on the recited product and does not depend on its method of production. Since the product in Kakizaki is the same as product disclosed by the presently claimed invention the claim is unpatentable even if the Kakizaki product was made by a different process. In re Marosi , 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 15 , K a k i zaki teaches that the composite has a tensile strength of 482 (Table 1 , No 4 ). These are in units of kg/cm2 measured via ASTM D-638 (evidenced by Table VII) and therefore 482 is equivalent to 47.2 MPa. 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(s) 1-2, 6-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Souza et al (US 2005/0238864) . Regarding claim 1 , D’Souza teaches a plastic resin composition comprising: a fiber composition comprising a fiber and a silane that is provided on the surface of the fiber ([0013]) and a plastic resin bonded to the fiber ([0003]). D’Souza fails to specifically exemplify the recited composition . However, it does disclose each of the components of the recited plastic resin , and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition . It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the resins suggested by D’Sou z a , including the claimed invention . In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of D’Sou z a to arrive at the presently claimed invention . It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predicable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 2 , D’Souza teaches that it is a glass fiber ( Table in [0020]). Regarding claim s 6 - 9 and 11 - 12 , as this claim is a product-by-process claim, patentability of said claim is based on the recited product and does not depend on its method of production. Since the product in D’Souza is the same as product disclosed by the presently claimed invention the claim is unpatentable even if the D’Souza product was made by a different process. In re Marosi , 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 13 , D’Souza teaches that the plastic resin further comprises glass bubbles ([0014]). Regarding claim 14 , D’Souza teaches that the glass bubbles are present in the amount from 5 to 20 weight percent ([0016]), the fiber composite is present in the amount from 7 to 35 weight percent ([0012]) and therefore, the amount of the plastic resin can be calculated to range from 88 to 45 weight percent. Regarding claim 15 , D’Souza teaches that the tensile strength is greater the 23.8 MPa (Table 3). Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al (US 4,748,197) . Regarding claim s 1 and 3 , Cordova teaches a plastic resin composition comprising: a fiber composition comprising a fiber and a silane that is provided on the surface of the fiber (col. 2, lines 35-50) and a plastic resin bonded to the fiber (col. 3, lines 60-col 4, line 2)). Cordova teaches that the silane is present in an amount of 0.01 to 1 wt. % of the silane on the fiber (col. 2, lines 40-50). Cordova fails to specifically exemplify the recited composition . However, it does disclose each of the components of the recited plastic resin , and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition . It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the resins suggested by Cordova , including the claimed invention . In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Cordova to arrive at the presently claimed invention . It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predicable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nukui et al (WO 2018/159861, please refer to US 2020/0102431 for English language equivalent and mapping). Regarding claim s 1 , 2, 5 and 10 , Nukui teaches a glass fiber reinforced resin molded article (Abstract). Nukui teaches that the glass fiber can be surface treated with a silane such as 3-mthyacryloxypropyl trimethoxysilane ([0046]). Nukui teaches that the glass fiber is present in the amount from 5 to 30 % volume ([0034]). Nukui fails to specifically exemplify the recited composition . However, it does disclose each of the components of the recited plastic resin , and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition . It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the resins suggested by Nukui , including the claimed invention . In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Nukui to arrive at the presently claimed invention . It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predicable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 4 , Nukui teaches that the plastic resin can be acrylonitrile butadiene styrene or polycarbonate ([0054]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3872 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8 am - 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS L. LEE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1764 /DORIS L LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764