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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 29, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 15 were amended, claims 12-13 were cancelled, and claims 21-23 were newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued April 2, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1) as anticipated by Vydra et al. (US 5,187,021) on claims 1-8, 10-11 and 14-16 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Vydra et al. teaches an apparatus 30 (fig. 5) comprised of vacuum series (50) consisting of multiple vacuum chambers (53, 55, 57). The apparatus (fig. 5) also comprised of spool roller (20), rollers (22, 94), and winder (92) that conveys a substrate/fiber (12) and all of them correspond to the claimed "fiber system". As shown in figure 5, the fiber (12) is passed through multiple vacuum sections (50, 200) (col. 7 lines 42 to 68, col. 8, col. 9, lines 1-14). Vydra et al. teaches that the vacuum chamber operates in an increasing level of vacuum for each stage is passed meaning one chamber would have more vacuum than the previous chamber and so forth, therefore each vacuum would have different vacuum pressure (col. 8, lines 10-17).
Vydra et al. also discloses a number of gas inlet ports (42) which apply an argon gas to the fiber (12) in order to reduce leakage and contamination between the vacuum chambers (50) such that it can be considered a sealing material which is applied before the fiber (12) enters the first chamber (53) (col. 8 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 2: Vydra et al. teaches that the vacuum series (50) operates in an increasing level of vacuum for each stage (53, 55, 57, and 74) meaning one chamber would have more vacuum than the previous chamber and so forth, therefore the vacuum chamber (74) at the end of chamber (57) would be the corresponding "central chamber" and would have the lowest pressure than other chambers (col. 8, lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 3: Vydra et al. teaches that the central chamber (74) has a vapor coating chamber that applies a diamond coating to fiber (12) (col. 8, lines 35-68, col. 9, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4: Vydra et al. teaches that the lowest pressure of vacuum chamber being 1x10^(-6) atm which converts to 0.76 millitorr which is less than 500 millitorr. Therefore, the chamber (74) is configured to achieve a pressure less than 500 millitorr (col. 8 lines 10-17, fig 5).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 7: Vydra et al. teaches the central chamber (74) that can be considered as "objective chamber" as the central chamber (74) coats the fiber (12) with a carbon diamond coating (coat a portion of fiber tow-claim 7). Additionally, Vydra et al. teaches adding carbon/diamond coating into the fiber (12) from hydrocarbon gas using plasma pyrolysis (chemically react-claim 6). Plasma pyrolysis leads to the decomposition of the hydrocarbon gas which forms carbon and hydrogen ions. The carbon ions are coated into the conveying fiber (12) by forming a film within the surface of the fiber (12) (fig 5, col.8, lines 35-68, col. 9, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 8: Vydra et al. teaches the fiber (12) passes from the vacuum series (50) consisting of chambers (53, 55, and 57) arranged in series until it reaches the central chamber (74), and then exits through an opposite series of vacuum chambers (202, 204, 206) in which the first vacuum chamber (53) and the last vacuum chamber (206) operate at higher pressures than the central chamber (74) (col. 8, lines 10-17, col. 9 lines 6-14 fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10: Vydra et al. teaches that the vacuum chambers (53, 55, 57) share a wall as shown in fig 5 and in the annotated diagram below.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: Vydra et al. discloses (col. 7 lines 43+) that the apparatus (30) is the same as that used in US Patent number 4,402,993 (Aisenberg et al.) which teaches that the chambers are tube-shaped (Aisenberg et al. figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 14: Vydra et al. teaches that the apparatus (30) in figure 5 has at least seven vacuum chambers (53, 55, 57, 74, 202, 204, 206).
Regarding claim 15: Vydra et al. teaches that each of the vacuum chambers in the vacuum sections (50, 200) has individual vacuum pumps (58, 208) respectively as shown in figure 5 (col. 8, lines 10-17, col. 9, lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 16: Vydra et al. teaches that the central chamber (74) is connected with a plasma source (82) which is in fluid communication with an argon gas source (58) through a nozzle (84). The nozzle (84) supplies a gas mixture of argon and plasma into the central chamber (74) (col. 8, lines 35-55).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vydra et al.
Regarding claim 21: Vydra et al. alternatively discloses a liquid application chamber (98) which can be used before the vacuum series (350) to apply a metal slurry such as iron trichloride which reacts with the fiber (12), and can also be considered a sealing material which naturally reduces the amount of leakage between vacuum chambers (col. 10 lines 26-36, lines 57-63, figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 22: Vydra et al. teaches that the argon gas forms a vortex which is a tortuous path within the vacuum series (50) (col. 8 lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 23: Vydra et al. discloses (col. 7 lines 43+) that the apparatus (30) is the same as that used in US Patent number 4,402,993 (Aisenberg et al.), which includes a control system which controls movement of the fiber such as adjusting the feed rate (Aisenberg et al. col. 13 lines 31-54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Vydra et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 10-11 and 14-16 on claim 9 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 9: Vydra et al. teaches carbon electrodes (76) that are heated through leads (78, 80) to emit carbon ions and coat the fiber (12) with the carbon/diamond/whisker coating in the central chamber (74) (col. 8 lines 35-55). Vydra et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the heating element heats the chamber to at least about 1400 degrees Celsius.
However, Vydra et al. does suggest that a whisker coating formation without use of a catalyst does not begin until 1500 degrees Celsius, meaning a coating in the central chamber (74) has to take place at over 1500 degrees C such that the electrodes (76) need to be heated to a temperature of 1500 degrees C or above (col. 4 lines 29-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using electrodes (76) at a temperature above 1500 degrees C without using a catalyst, because Vydra et al. teaches that such a whisker coating takes place at temperatures above 1500 degrees Celsius without a catalyst (col. 4 lines 29-43) and trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e. with or without a catalyst) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections of claims 1 and 7 are withdrawn because Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 recites subject matter not discussed in the claims of co-pending Application 18/153,871.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Vydra et al. does not teach a sealing system applying a sealing material as now required by claim 1.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments read the claims too narrowly- the argon supply within the tube (36) can read on the claimed “sealing material” which is applied to the fiber (12) and designed to prevent leakage of material into the vacuum chambers, as claimed. Alternatively, Vydra et al. also discloses the figure 6 and 7 embodiments in which an aqueous metal material is applied to the fiber (figure 6) before the fiber enters the first vacuum chamber (figure 7), which can also be considered a sealing material in the same manner as in the instant invention.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/16/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights