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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-10 are pending and are currently under examination. Examiner Interpretation Interpretation: ZA27 has more compositions associated with it than is discussed at [0008] of the instant specification and is broader than 70.52 to 71.08 weight percent zinc, 25.58 to 27.65 weight percent aluminum, 1.27 to 3.45 weight percent copper and 0 to 0.50 weight percent magnesium and the scope of claim 1 is therefore indefinite (see rejection under 112(b) set forth below) . Otherwise, claim 7 could not further limit claim 1. 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. Claims 1-10 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. Claims 1-2, 7 and 9 contains the trademark/trade name ZA27. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a class of zinc-aluminum alloys and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Still regarding claim 1, in “ AlN p /ZA27 composite material”, the “p” is not defined in the claim therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. In regard to claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or adequately suggest a method of preparing a thermally-conductive composite material, comprising subjecting an as-cast composite of aluminum nitride and zinc-based alloy comprising 70.52 to 71.08 weight percent zinc, 25.58 to 27.65 weight percent aluminum, 1.27 to 3.45 weight percent copper and 0 to 0.5 weight percent magnesium to reciprocating extrusion to produce thermally-conductive material w herein the volume of aluminum nitride ceramic particles is 2%, 4%, 6% or 8%. The closest prior art to Liang et al. (CN ‘291) teaches a reinforced zinc alloy composite material of a zinc alloy and a nanosheet where the zinc alloy is of the form ZnM where M is one or more of aluminum, silver, copper, manganese, nickel, titanium, chromium, and cobalt where the mass percentage of M is 0.1 to 3% and the nanosheet comprises one of lithium nitride, magnesium, nitride, aluminum nitride, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, boron nitride, phosphorus pentanitride and silicon tetranitride. However, the instant alloy requires a much higher level (more than 25 weight percent of aluminum alone) of metals other an zinc and Liang et al. (CN ‘291) fails to indicate reciprocating extrusion. T herefore claim 1 distinguishes from Liang et al. (CN ‘291). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liang et al. (CN 117051291 A). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jessee Roe whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5938 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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 Curt Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1234 . 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. /JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759