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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/3/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and claim objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections and objections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are entered in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “impregnating and filling pores of the porous molded body with a matrix material in a molten state, by a pressure casting method, thereby the regular unevenness on the surface of the reinforcing material being coated with the matrix material and the metal matrix composite having a continuously integrated metal coating layer of the matrix material, as a surface layer of the composite, being formed”. This claim language is grammatically awkward and should be rewritten in idiomatic English. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 1 recites: “a continuously integrated metal coating layer of the matrix material is formed on the surface of the reinforcing material”. This limitation is indefinite. The claim appears to require the metal coating layer to be simultaneously formed on the matrix material and the reinforcing material, which is not possible. For purposes of examination, it is presumed the metal coating layer is formed from the matrix material or formed of the same metal as the matrix material.
Claims 1 and 5 recite: “the height difference is 50% or less of a thickness of the metal coating layer”. This limitation is indefinite. The thickness of the metal coating layer could be constant (e.g., the coating layer is conformal to the regular unevenness), or it is variable (e.g., the coating layer forms a flat surface over the regular unevenness). The claim does not restrict the metal coating layer to one of these possibilities. In the case of the latter, the coating layer has multiple different thicknesses and it is not clear which of these is the claimed “a thickness of the metal coating layer”. For purposes of examination, an average thickness is presumed.
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of the dependence from an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 appear to 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.
Reasons for allowance appear in the previous Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights