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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillot (EP 0335781 B1).
With respect to claim 11, Rouillot teaches a fiber reinforced metal composite member, comprising: a metallic matrix (figure 2; examiner notes that the reference teaches a tulip 20 with a metal connecting tail 22 and a cylindrical casing 24; page 3 of translation) wherein the metallic matrix is provided with a plurality of grooves (see figure 2;26a, 26b; examiner notes the metallic structure forms grooves along its exterior); and the plurality of grooves are filled with fiber-reinforced polymers (34; see page 3 of translation). While Rouillot does not recite “a preset angle relative to the longitudinal direction of the metallic matrix,” the examiner contends this feature is obvious. The groove is located on the exterior surface of the metal structure and as such its longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle relative to the longitudinal surface of the bottom surface of such groove formed by the metallic matrix itself.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, while the preset angle is not specifically defined, based on figure 2, like applicant’s invention, the grooves of Rouillot are disposed at intervals along the exterior surface and as such may be disposed at the angles as recited.
With respect to claim 13, while the reference does not teach the strain of the fiber-reinforced polymer(s), examiner contends that this is obvious. Rouillot teaches fibers embedded in a polymer like that in the instant application and thus, the property is expected. Furthermore, applicant does not specify the type and/or composition of polymer or fiber only that glass and/or carbon fiber are suitable and as such, since Rouillot teaches the equivalent structure, examiner contends it would be expected to have the same property.
With respect to claim 14, Rouillot teaches the grooves have the same shape (see figure 2 above) and while it may not specifically be a circle, square or rectangle. Examiner contends this is a mere change in shape and is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 15, the plurality of grooves is/are arranged on a surface of the metallic matrix and are arranged at equal intervals along the longitudinal direction of the metallic matrix (see figure 2 above).
With respect to claim 16, the plurality of grooves is/are arranged inside the metallic matrix. Examiner notes that the grooves themselves are delimited on either side by the walls of the matrix itself (see 26a and 26b and thus, inside the matrix as claimed). In addition, the matrix material may include the casing 24 and therefore, remains inside the matrix material. Examiner notes that the claim does not preclude the addition of an element which encases the metal inserts 26a and 26b.
With respect to claim 17, while Rouillot does not specifically teach the property as claimed, examiner contends that the structure of Rouillot includes the metallic matrix with grooves and fiber-reinforced polymer contained therein. As such, the property is expected. Furthermore, examiner notes that applicant has not identified specific metal(s), polymer and/or fiber, only that glass and/or carbon fiber are suitable and thus, because Rouillot teaches the equivalent structure and the use of glass and/or carbon fiber (see page 5) and similar uses for the composite, examiner contends the property as recited is expected.
Claims 18 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillot (EP 0335781 B1).
With respect to claim 18, Rouilot teaches a manufacturing method of forming the fiber-reinforced metal composite member of claim 11, comprising: forming the plurality of grooves on the metallic matrix at the preset angle relative to the longitudinal direction of the metallic matrix (prior art teaches forming the inserts, see page 4), providing the fiber-reinforced polymers having a predetermined contact and elastic modulus and filling the fiber-reinforced polymers into the grooves to obtain the fiber-reinforced metal composite member (see page 6 and 7). While not specifically reciting “forming at the preset angle”, the examiner contends that the inserts are formed and inserted into the casing at equidistant intervals and thus, examiner contends the “preset angle” is obvious per the teachings in Rouillot.
With respect to claim 19, while the reference does not teach the specific step of determining the cross-sectional resistance of the fiber-reinforced metal composite member, the examiner contends that this step is obvious. The fiber(s) used in Rouillot is/are glass and/or carbon fiber (see page 5), which the same as that identified in applicant’s specification and the fiber-reinforced polymer is designed to improve rigidity, but also thermal performance (see page 5 – 6) and thus, the examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine the resistance as claimed to provide a composite with appropriate rigidity, thermal performance, etc. as taught by Rouillot.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillot as applied to claims 18 – 19 above, and further in view of Ikeda (EP 3023244 A1).
Rouillot teaches the features as recited above but does not teach the step of sandblasting the grooves before filling said grooves with fiber-reinforced polymer.
Ikeda teaches bonding strength of a composite molded article can be made higher via treating the surface or roughening it via sandblasting, etching, etc. Surfaces roughened in this manner may then be injection molded with resin which settles into the surface(s) of the metal component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to sandblast the surface of the metal insert of Rouillot for the purpose of ensuring a high bonding strength with the fiber-reinforced polymer which is introduced into the grooves to form the composite article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, filed April 30, 2026 with respect to the prior rejections under 35 USC 112, second paragraph have been considered and found persuasive. Thus, such rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s primary argument is that is that the Rouillot does not appreciate the management of longitudinal tensile stresses or the prevention of localized thinning and necking. However, while this is not specifically addressed in the art, the examiner contends that applicant has not addressed why the art fails to render obvious the structural feature(s) of claim 11.
As noted above, the Rouillot teaches the metallic matrix with grooves (formed by inserts 26a and 26b), which are injection-molded with fiber-reinforced polymer. The fibers in Rouillot may be glass and/or carbon fiber. This structure is equivalent to the structure claimed in claim 11 and thus, the examiner contends Rouillot renders obvious the claims.
With respect to the functional limitations argued by applicant with respect to claims 17 and the manufacturing process recited in claim 19, the examiner is not persuaded by such arguments.
With respect to claim 17, as noted above, the examiner contends that Rouillot renders obvious the structure of the component as claimed and identifies the same fibers as that which applicant uses and thus, examiner contends the functional limitation or property is expected.
With respect to clam 19, examiner contends that the process which recites “obtaining a local engineering stress-strain curve of a necking cross-section” is obvious over Rouillot. Rouillot appreciates the choice of fiber to improve rigidity and thermal performance. Matrix material is also chosen based on mechanical properties desired and its function and as such, obtaining a local engineering stress-strain curve would be obvious. Furthermore, the materials in Rouillot are conventional and known materials in the production of composite. Likewise, applicant has also identified conventional materials and the application of a stress-strain curve seems to be an optimization of the materials to be used. Examiner notes that applicant’s specification is not specific as to composition, ratios of materials, types or thicknesses and thus, examiner contends the ideal material to be used is a matter of optimization.
With respect to the rejection of claim 20, examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments. Ikeda is cited for the step of sandblasting and not the functional limitations or properties as argued and as such, examiner maintains the rejection of claim 20.
References of Interest
Vetters is cited of interest (US 7,842,375). Vetters teaches a metal matrix or sheet with a groove therein. The grooves may be filled with fibers uncoated or coated (with polymer).
Conclusion
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 MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights