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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A1 in the reply filed on March 20, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-6 and 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 20, 2026.
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 3 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electronic position control signals" in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites, inter alia, a translatable platform having “a plurality of actuators.” However, since claim 1 recites that the fiber growth machine has “one or more actuators” it is unclear whether the actuators recited in claim 9 are the same actuators or different actuators than those recited in claim 1. For examination purposes it is assumed applicants intended to refer to the same actuators in both claims 1 and 9.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,392,721 to Nicholas Djeu (hereinafter “Djeu”).
Regarding claim 1, Djeu teaches a method for growing a single-crystal fiber (SCF) using a fiber growth machine having one or more actuators (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and entire reference which teach a method for growing a SCF (18) using a fiber growth machine having, inter alia, a steel pedestal rod (410) whose vertical movement is controlled via a lead screw (440) and DC servomotor (450) while the horizontal position of the feed material (15) is controlled by motorized translation stages (280) and (290)), the method comprising:
receiving, via an electronic control unit (ECU), a set of image data from at least one digital camera (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, l. 59 to col. 4, l. 3, col. 6, ll. 24-31, and col. 7, ll. 1-38 which teach that a controller (100) including a CPU (120) is adapted to control, inter alia, an imaging system (90) which acquires image data using a CCD camera which produces two-dimensional images of the molten zone (18)),
wherein the image data includes a first group of pixels of a feed fiber, a seed fiber, and a molten zone formed therebetween using a laser beam (see Figs.1-2 & 5, col. 3, l. 44 to col. 4, l. 13, and col. 7, ll. 50-54 which teach that the CCD camera obtains an image of a seed (17), the molten zone (18), and the feed material (15) with said image necessarily including a first group of pixels; moreover, the molten zone (18) is formed by heating with a laser beam (35));
identifying, via the ECU, a feature of interest within the first group of pixels; locating one or more position-identifying pixels within the feature of interest as a second group of pixels (see Figs. 1-2, col. 4, ll. 4-18, and col. 7, ll. 1-54 which teach that the location and measured brightness of the maximum brightness point is measured and this may be considered as a second group of pixels that is controlled by the controller (100) through a feedback loop in order to, inter alia, adjust the power attenuator of one of the lasers to stabilize the maximum brightness point about a preselected value); and
controlling a position of the feed fiber in real-time via the ECU using the second group of pixels while growing the SCF, including transmitting electronic position control signals to the one or more actuators (see Figs. 1-2, col. 4, ll. 4-18, and col. 7, ll. 1-54 which further teach that the controller (100) includes an algorithm which is able to control the speed of translation for both the feed transport mechanism (70) and the seed transport mechanism (80) in response to measurements of the maximum brightness of the maximum brightness point of the molten zone to produce a fiber (18) having the desired tapered shape).
Djeu does not explicitly teach that the horizontal position of the feed fiber is controlled in real-time via the ECU using the second group of pixels while growing the SCF. However, in Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, ll. 15-23 Djeu teaches that orthogonally oriented motorized translation stages (280) and (290) enable precise lateral positioning of the feed material (15) with respect to the focus of the combined laser beam (35) during SCF growth. Then in Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 6, ll. 46-67 Djeu further teaches that the seed transport mechanism (80) horizontally aligns the seed material (17) with the feed material (15) via a pair of orthogonally oriented motorized translation stages underneath a roller fixture (320). In this regard, controlling the horizontal movement of the feed material (15) instead of or in conjunction with the horizontal movement of the seed material (17) would be considered as an alternative which achieves the same effect, namely that of aligning the longitudinal axes of the seed (17) and feed (15) materials with each other. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would use the controller (100) in conjunction with the imaging system (90) to control the motorized translation stages (280) and (290) such that the horizontal position of the feed material (15) is adjusted during growth of the SCF based on changes in the location and maximum brightness point of the molten zone with the motivation for doing so being to maintain alignment between the feed material (15) and seed material (17) such that a SCF having a more uniform and consistent diameter is produced.
Regarding claim 2, Djeu teaches that identifying the feature of interest within the first group of pixels includes
identifying a saturated pixel cluster within the first group of pixels, the saturated pixel cluster having a threshold brightness level indicative of a location of the molten zone in the first group of pixels (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, l. 59 to col. 4 l. 18, and col. 7, ll. 1-54 which teach that the measured brightness of the entirety of the molten zone may be considered as a first group of pixels which has a threshold brightness level and identifies the location of the molten zone);
locating the one or more position-identifying pixels includes identifying a center pixel of the saturated pixel cluster as a reference point (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, l. 59 to col. 4 l. 18, and col. 7, ll. 1-54 which teach that the location and intensity of the maximum brightness point in the molten zone is determined and may be considered as a center pixel whose brightness and location is used as a reference point that is controlled by the controller (100)).
Djeu does not explicitly teach that the horizontal position of the feed fiber is controlled in response to a positional variation of the reference point. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Figs. 1 & 3 and col. 6, ll. 15-23 Djeu teaches that orthogonally oriented motorized translation stages (280) and (290) enable precise lateral positioning of the feed material (15) with respect to the focus of the combined laser beam (35). Then in Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 6, ll. 46-67 Djeu further teaches that the seed transport mechanism (80) horizontally aligns the seed material (17) with the feed material (15) via a pair of orthogonally oriented motorized translation stages underneath a roller fixture (320). In this regard, controlling the horizontal movement of the feed material (15) instead of or in conjunction with the horizontal movement of the seed material (17) would be considered as an alternative which achieves the same effect, namely that of aligning the longitudinal axes of the seed (17) and feed (15) materials with each other. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would use the controller (100) in conjunction with the imaging system (90) to control the motorized translation stages (280) and (290) such that the horizontal position of the feed material (15) is adjusted during growth of the SCF based on changes in the location and maximum brightness point of the molten zone with the motivation for doing so being to maintain alignment between the feed material (15) and seed material (17) such that a SCF having a more uniform and consistent diameter is produced.
Regarding claim 3, Djeu teaches maintaining a size and/or shape of the molten zone via the electronic position control signals, via the ECU, such that the reference point remains static (see Figs. 1-2, col. 4, ll. 4-18, and col. 7, ll. 1-54 which teach that the controller (100) includes an algorithm which controls the speed of translation for both the feed transport mechanism (70) and the seed transport mechanism (80) which necessarily controls the location and maximum brightness of the maximum brightness point of the molten zone such that it remains static during growth in order to produce a fiber (18) having the desired tapered shape; alternatively, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to use the controller (100) to adjust the speed of translation for the feed transport (70) and seed transport (80) mechanisms and to control the horizontal position of the feed material (15) via motorized translation stages (280) and (290) such that the maximum brightness point remains in a fixed location during SCF growth in order to produce a more uniform fiber with a constant shape and diameter).
Regarding claim 4, Djeu teaches varying a size and/or shape of the molten zone using the ECU, via control of the laser beam and/or a feed rate of the feed fiber, to thereby form a tapered profile in the fiber (see Figs. 1-2, col. 4, ll. 4-18, and col. 7, ll. 1-54 which further teach that the controller (100) includes an algorithm which is able to control the speed of translation for both the feed transport mechanism (70) and the seed transport mechanism (80) as well as the maximum brightness of the maximum brightness point of the molten zone to produce a fiber (18) having the desired tapered shape).
Regarding claim 8, Djeu does not explicitly teach the steps of receiving, via the ECU, a trigger signal from an external device, wherein the trigger signal is indicative of a requested initiation of a fiber growing process using the fiber growing machine; and requesting, via the ECU in response to the trigger signal, that the at least one digital camera commences collection of the image data. However, in col. 6, l. 32 to col. 7, l. 13 Djeu teaches that at the beginning of a fiber growth run an appropriate feed material (15) is placed at the top of the pedestal rod (410) and made to go through the feed guide (230) in the growth chamber (40) by using the controller (100) to drive a lead screw (440) using a DC servomotor (450). In this regard there necessarily is an external trigger signal such as, for example, a user pressing “enter” or a “start” button on a keyboard connected to the controller (100) in order to initiate movement of the feed material (15), to commence heating via the laser (35), to insert and then extract the seed fiber (17), and to activate the CCD camera so that SCF growth may be initiated, monitored, and controlled. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would manually initiate the crystal growth process on the controller (100) after insertion of the desired feed material (15) and seed fiber (17) by, for example, pressing a button on a keyboard or other external controller with the motivation for doing so being to control the initiation of SCF growth at the desired place and time.
Regarding claim 9, Djeu teaches that the fiber growth machine includes a translatable platform having a plurality of actuators collectively operable for moving the translatable platform with two horizontal translational degrees of freedom, and wherein controlling the horizontal position of the feed fiber includes controlling the actuators via the electronic position control signals (see Figs. 1, 3, & 6 and col. 6, ll. 15-23 which teach that two orthogonally oriented motorized translation stages (280) and (290) are controlled by the controller (100) in order to control the position of a feed guide (230) and, consequently, to provide precise lateral positioning of the feed material (15) with respect to the focus of the combined laser beam (35)).
Claims 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djeu in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,712 to Buric, et al. (“Buric”).
Regarding claim 7, Djeu teaches that receiving the set of image data from the at least one digital camera includes using a first camera to image a first optical axis of the feed fiber (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, ll. 44-51, and col. 6, ll. 24-31 which teach the use of a first CCD camera which necessarily obtains an image of a first optical axis of the feed fiber(15)), but does not explicitly teach the use of a second camera to image a second optical axis of the feed fiber, and wherein the first optical axis of the feed fiber and the second optical axis of the feed fiber are mutually perpendicular. However, in Figs. 1-3 and col. 4, l. 13 to col. 7, l. 50 Buric teaches an analogous system and method of growing single crystal fibers by the laser-heated pedestal growth method. In col. 5, l. 57 to col. 6, l. 18 Buric specifically teaches the use of a camera array to observe and measure the molten zone which includes at least two cameras arranged 90° from each other while oriented axially to the fiber in order to provide a full picture of the location of the fiber with respect to the molten zone. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize two 90° oriented cameras to provide a full picture of the location of the fiber and the molten zone such that more precise control of the diameter and uniformity of the single crystal fiber may be obtained.
Regarding claim 10, Djeu teaches that the at least one camera includes a first camera positioned on a first optical axis and operable for collecting portions of the image data on a first optical axis, and a mirror, wherein the first camera is configured to collect another portion of the image data that is reflected off of the mirror (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, ll. 44-51, and col. 6, ll. 24-31 which teach the use of a first CCD camera in order to obtain images of the molten zone (18) via a plurality of relay mirrors with said images necessarily including at least an image of a first optical axis of the feed fiber(15)), but does not explicitly teach that the mirror is positioned on a second optical axis that is orthogonally arranged with respect to the first optical axis. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 7, in Figs. 1-3 and col. 4, l. 13 to col. 7, l. 50 Buric teaches an analogous system and method of growing single crystal fibers by the laser-heated pedestal growth method. In col. 5, l. 57 to col. 6, l. 18 Buric specifically teaches the use of a camera array to observe and measure the molten zone which includes at least two cameras arranged 90° from each other while oriented axially to the fiber in order to provide a full picture of the location of the fiber with respect to the molten zone. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to orient the mirrors utilized in the system of Djeu by 90° about the longitudinal axis of the feed (15) and seed (17) materials to provide a full picture of the location of the fiber and the molten zone such that more precise control of the diameter and uniformity of the single crystal fiber may be obtained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In at least Figs. 1-7 and associated descriptive text U.S. Patent No. 5,690,735 to Uwe Becker teaches an analogous embodiment of a system and method for the growth of a SCF from a molten zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights