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. Claims 11-20 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. Applicant has not claimed a shape or structure to the invention and therefore claims to grooves in a “horizontal direction” , such as claim 11 , are not clear as it is not clear what the grooves are horizontal to. Later claims t o specific angles ( such as claim 12) are less clear given the ambiguity . Given the lack of structure claimed any plane can be the horizontal and set to achieve the claimed angles of claim 12. Claim 17 is not clear and should be explained. It has the same deficiencies as claims above and claim 19 below. Claim 19 provides no actual process steps for “designing a cross - sectional resistance of the ’’… “so that the cross-sectional resistance of the composite member keeps hardening until a rupture” It is not clear how that is determined or by what method it is designed . The specification is not helpful in trying to ascertain the meaning. The art of record is considered to meet the claim limitations in question absent evidence to the contrary given substantially similar structure and composition and the lack of clarity of the process claimed. 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) 11- 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillot (EP 0335781 B1) . Rouillot ( EP 0335781 B1 ) teaches a substantially identical invention providing a metal matrix material and fiber reinforced polymer in grooves in the matrix (see figures and claims). Applicant has not claimed a shape or structure to the invention and therefore claims to grooves in a “horizontal direction” are not clear as it is not clear what they are horizontal to. Later claims to specific angles ( i.e. applicants claim 12) are less clear. Given the lack of structure claimed any plane can be the horizontal and set to achieve the claimed angles of claim 12 . Claim 17 is not clear and should be explained. It has the same deficiencies as claims above and claim 19 below. Claim 19 provides no actual process steps for “designing a cross-sectional resistance of the composite’’… “so that the cross-sectional resistance of the composite member keeps hardening until a rupture”. It is not clear how that is determined or by what method. The specification is not helpful in trying to ascertain the meaning. The art of record is considered to meet the claim limitations in question absent evidence to the contrary given substantially similar structure and composition ( Both teach Epoxy polymer with glass fibers in grooves of a metal matrix; in the reference (see translation) and Applicant’s US PG Pub. [0029, 0049]). and the lack of clarity of the process claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time of filing to provide the overlapping claimed materials that would be expected to have identical properties absent a showing to the contrary. Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillot (EP 0335781 B1) in view of Ikeda (EP 3023244 A1) . Rouillot does not teach sandblasting in t h e grooves where the fiber resynced resin is adhered per claim 20. Ikeda (EP 3023244 A1) teaches the bonding strength of the composite molded article of the metal molded article and the resin molded article thus produced can be higher than the bonding strength of, for example, a composite molded article that is obtained by bonding a resin molded article to a surface of a metal molded article with an adhesive after subjecting the surface of the metal molded article to a chemical treatment, such as an etching treatment, or a physical treatment, such as a sandblast treatment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time of filing to provide sandblasting the grooves in order to strengthen the bond between the resin and metal matrix material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1534 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 9-6 . 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 Veronica Ewald can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8519 . 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. /DANIEL H MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783