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 May 28, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 3-7 and 10-11 were amended.
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 August 27, 2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The term “retort” is not defined in the specification, nor is it commonly used in the art. The best definition which can be found for a “retort” in the instant context is a heating chamber with a controlled internal pressure. This definition will be used for examination.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Vydra et al. discloses a carbon fiber (12) coating system which includes a coating chamber (74) configured to apply a metal to the carbon fiber (12), as well as a series of vacuum chambers (50, 200) which is a vacuum processing system that anneal the carbon containing coating to convert it into a silicon carbide coating, which is a metal carbide (col. 3 lines 38-64, col. 6 lines 49-53, col. 7 lines 43+, col. 8, col. 9 lines 1-28, figure 5).
Regardless, the limitations regarding how the reaction occurs are considered to be statements with regard to the intended use of the apparatus, and not a structural feature of the instant invention. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. Since the structure of Vydra et al. meets that of claim 1, it is clearly capable of performing the same reactions. Similarly, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2114) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2112.01).
Vydra et al. also discloses that the coating chamber (74) is surrounded by a number of other vacuum chambers (50, 200) such that it can be considered a retort within a central vacuum chamber comprising a vacuum furnace (see figure 5). Alternatively, Vydra et al. discloses a number of other embodiments including one taught by Aisenberg et al. (US 4,402,993), the text of which is incorporated entirely into Vydra et al. (col. 7 lines 43+), in which a chamber portion (80) is provided in the central vacuum chamber and includes various coils (85) and electrodes (87-91) which all form chambers around the fiber (20) which can be considered a retort housed within the vacuum chamber, which can be considered a furnace (Aisenberg et al. col. 10 lines 1-26, figures 1 and 4). Another embodiment discussed by Vydra et al. has a central reaction zone (420) housed within the central reaction section which is a vacuum chamber (400) with heaters such that it can also be considered a vacuum furnace, with the central reaction zone (420) being a retort (col. 10 lines 64+, col. 11 lines 1-16, figure 7). In any case, Vydra et al. discloses embodiments featuring an element which can be considered a retort, housed within a vacuum furnace of a vacuum chamber.
Regarding claim 2: Vydra et al. discloses that the metal carbide coating can be silicon carbide (col. 9 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 3: Vydra et al. discloses that leads (78, 80) are provided to heat carbon electrodes (76) which then heat the carbon fiber (12) (col. 8 lines 35-55, figure 5).
Regarding claim 5: Vydra et al. discloses that the vacuum chamber (50) is composed of several stages (53, 55, 57) which are individual chambers (col. 8 lines 10-17, figure 5).
Regarding claim 6: Vydra et al. discloses that the vacuum chambers (53, 55, 57) have an increasing level of vacuum such that the final one has the lowest pressure, which can be considered the central vacuum chamber as it is central to the overall device (col. 8 lines 10-17, figure 5).
Regarding claim 7: Vydra et al. discloses a similar vacuum chamber (200) series (202, 204, 205) downstream of the coating chamber (74) such that the first one of that, which has the highest level of vacuum, can be considered to be an “objective” chamber which naturally helps convert a portion of the coated carbon fiber (12) to the silicon carbide coated fiber (col. 9 lines 6-14, figure 5).
Regarding claim 9: Vydra et al. discloses that silicon tetrachloride can be one of the reactant vapors used by the coating chamber (74) to create the silicon carbide coating (col. 4 lines 44-48, col. 8 lines 35-55, col. 9 lines 15-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Vydra et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 above on claim 4 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 4: Vydra et al. fails to explicitly disclose the temperature the heating leads are set to heat the carbon fiber (12) to. However, Vydra et al. does explain earlier in the disclosure that the formation of silicon carbide can take place at temperatures above 1500 degrees Celsius (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 use the heating elements at a temperature above 1500 degrees Celsius if not using a catalyst to create silicon carbide, because Vydra et al. teaches that it is known that silicon carbide formation takes place at this temperature (col. 4 lines 29-43).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Vydra et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9 above and further in view of Brun et al. (US 2007/0099527) on claims 8 and 10-11 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 8: Vydra et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the metal application system comprises a slurry bath or brush system that applies a layer of slurry onto the fibers. However, Brun et al. discloses a similar fiber tow coating system which uses a CVD coating technique or instead a slurry bath dipping system (par. 5) such that CVD coating and slurry bath dipping are functional equivalents for coating fiber tows. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a slurry-dipping coating technique for the fibers of Vydra et al. as taught by Brun et al. because simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claims 10-11: Vydra et al. discloses that the carbon fibers can be coating and wound together but does not disclose any structural details about the finished carbon fiber size or amount of fibers in the tow. However, Brun et al. discloses a similar processing system for coating a carbon fiber tow which coats tows consisting of about 500-12,000 fibers having a cross-sectional diameter of between 4 and 25 microns (par. 26). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use entire fiber tows as taught by Brun et al. for the carbon fiber coating of Vydra et al. because Brun et al. teaches that this enhances productivity when compared to coating single fibers one at a time (pars. 6-8). While this is not the exact claimed range of 10-10,000 fibers or 10-50 microns, the disclosed range of 500-12,000 fibers and 4-25 microns overlaps the claimed ranges such that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing fate of the claimed invention through routine experimentation to result in the claimed ranges of 10-10,000 fibers or 10-50 microns because “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Vydra et al. fails to teach a retort housed within a vacuum furnace in the central vacuum chamber.
In response:
Applicant is reading the claims far too narrowly. The instant specification uses the term “retort” just once to describe what the objective chamber (114) may be. There is no further requirement or definition of the term “retort” implicitly or explicitly listed within the specification, so the term has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation within the instant art, in which it is an extremely uncommon term, to be any heating chamber configured to heat an element in a controlled atmosphere. Vydra et al. while failing to explicitly recite the term “retort”, lists a number of different components which can read on the claimed “retort” given this interpretation, as listed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore Applicant’s argument which reads the claims far too narrowly, is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hori et al. (US 2002/0005717) discloses a similar reel-to-reel apparatus provided with a separate vacuum-processing chamber (103) within an outer vacuum vessel (102), where the vacuum-processing chamber (103) can be considered a retort within the outer vacuum furnace (102).
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