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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 08-17-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without including a ceramic powder in the coextrusion mixture, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The disclosed method requires a ceramic powder in the coextrusion mixture in order to provide the material for the crystalline clad which is densified to form the optically transparent C4 fiber. ¶ [0032]-[0034] describe the inclusion of a majority of ceramic powder in the coextrusion mixture, and that the cladding is ceramic. However, claims 8 and 13 do not recite a ceramic powder in the coextrusion mixture, only a plasticizer and a binder, which are disclosed as being organics.
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 2-7 and 15-20 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 2 recites the limitation "the YAG core" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-7 are rejected by their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the step of sintering the C4 fiber under ambient atmosphere" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the step of cooling" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 15, it is unclear if the “step of sintering” is part of “thermally densifying the green C4 fiber” as recited in the last line of claim 13, or if it is a separate step.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the step of hot isostatically pressing the C4 fiber" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “hot isostatically pressing the C4 fiber” in line 2. It is unclear if this is referring back to the step of hot isostatically pressing as recited in claims 16 and 17, or if claim 18 is reciting an additional step of hot isostatically pressing. If it is referring back to the step of hot isostatically pressing as recited in claims 16 and 17, Examiner recommends, --…wherein in the step of thermally densifying the C4 fiber , the step of hot isostatically pressing the C4 fiber is in an argon atmosphere.-- Note that claim 18 depends from claims 16 and 17 which have additional 112(b) issues above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the step of sintering the C4 fiber" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the step of hot isostatically pressing the C4 fiber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 20, it is unclear if the “step of sintering” and the “step of isostatically pressing the C4 fiber” are part of the “thermally densifying the green C4 fiber” as recited in the last line of claim 13, or if they are separate steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08-17-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 18 was rejected for the thermally densifying step reciting the previously claimed step of hot isostatic pressing, but that is clear that claim 18 is further limiting the atmosphere of the hot isostatic pressing. This is not persuasive because “comprises hot isostatically pressing” appears to introduce a new step of hot isostatically pressing. For the claim to clearly refer back to claims 16 and 17 in order to further limiting the hot isostatic pressing as alleged, “hot isostatically pressing” should be preceded by --the-- or --the step of--. Examiner has provided additional detailed suggestions in the respective 112(b) rejection of claim 18 above.
Applicant’s remarks acknowledge the rejections of claims 8-20 under 35 USC 112(a), but the claims have not been amended to address the rejections, and there are no arguments traversing the rejections. The rejections are repeated herein.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 2 for antecedent basis was not addressed in the instant amendments, and the amendments of claims 15-20 created new issues under 35 USC 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not fairly teach or suggest forming a C4 fiber by extruding a coextrusion mixture onto an already crystalline core as claimed. See the previous Office action for citations of prior art that forms C4 fibers by various alternate methods.
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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights