DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed January 18, 2026. Claims 2, 6, and 8-15 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3, 6, and 8-15 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.
Claims 3 and 8-15 lack antecedent basis in the preamble for the co-molded…fiber- fiber-reinforced part”. Parent claim 6 sets forth “A co-molded…fiber-reinforced part”, but does not appear to include a “fiber- fiber-reinforced part”. Correction is required.
Claim 6 at lines 5-6 limit “the metal layers” however there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for a “metal layers”. Claim 6 at line 4 establishes “a metal layer”, however it is unclear what other layers applicants’ intend to be referenced by “the metal layers”. Correction is required.
Claim 9 limit the one or more chemical precursors to include “alkoxysilanes a molecule with hybrid organic and metal oxide groups with at least one organic functional group that bonds the thermoset resin”. The scope of this statement is unclear. Does the phrase following “alkoxysilanes” (i) define alkoxysilanes (not further limiting), (ii) require an alkoxysilane that is further limited to the defined molecule, or (iii) does is the alkoxysilanes limited in some alternate manner?
Claim 12 sets forth a list that does not close with a conjunction such as “and” or “or”. It is unclear if the list is complete and is as intended by applicants. Further claim 12 does not use the conventional Markush terminology, “selected from the group consisting of” such that it is unclear if applicants intend to include additional members. Are the listed items a closed group from which the organic oxysilane compound is selected? For purposes of examination the group will be considered a closed group of alternatives.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 8-15 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.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of parent claim 6 and to overcome the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Tomantschger et al. (PGPub US 2010/0304065).disclose the application of metallic coatings to polymer composite parts including those with carbon/graphite/ or glass fibers as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the modified surface of the metal layer comprising a thin film less than 500nm that consists of a hybrid inorganic metal oxide and organic functional groups selected from one or more classes of epoxy, amine, acrylate, carboxylate, hydride, vinyl, sulfur containing, phosphorous-containing, and halogen containing. Further it would not have been obvious to modify the metallic layer of Tomantschger et al. in order to obtain a modified structure meeting the requirements claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ remarks and amendments to the claims filed January 18, 2026 have been received and would be found to place the application in condition for allowance with the exception of new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) having been identified and set forth above. Given the new grounds of rejection were not necessitated by applicants’ amendments to the claims. This action is NON-FINAL.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights