DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 2005/0087406 to Meckel in view of US Patent 6290032 to Patrick et al.
Re: claim 10. Meckel shows in figures 2 and 3 a coated brake disk comprising: a brake disk substrate 26 having parallel surfaces shown in figure 2, at least a portion of the parallel surfaces applied with a surface finish to impart a predetermined three-dimensional texture shown in figure 3 to the parallel surfaces of the brake disk, wherein the three-dimensional surface texture is selected from the group consisting of a woven structure and a textured structure or particularly a textured surface, the three-dimensional surface texture having as labeled in the annotated version of figure 3 peaks, valleys, and angular surfaces i.e. the illustrated transitions between the peaks and valleys, wherein in a finished product an outermost layer of the parallel surfaces of the brake disk is coated with a coating that includes
[AltContent: textbox (Angular surface)][AltContent: textbox (Angular surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peaks )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Valleys)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
426
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least a first layer of a first coating material 28 described in paragraph [0023] and at least a second layer of a second coating material 30 described in paragraph [0024] applied by vapor deposition as described in the abstract as best understood, and wherein the coating enhances (i.e. by controlling the depositing of the coating) the predetermined three-dimensional texture, but is silent with regard to the peaks and valleys specifically being pointed.
Patrick et al. teach in figure 3A the use of peaks and valleys that are pointed.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pointed peak)]
[AltContent: textbox (Pointed valley)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
180
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the peaks and valleys of Meckel to have been pointed, in view of the teachings of Patrick et al., in order to provide a surface with greater friction as well as better coating adhesion and durability.
Re: claims 11 and 13. See paragraph [0024] of Meckel.
Re: claims 12 and 14. See paragraphs [0023] and [0024] of Meckel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the most recent amendments. With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that Meckel does not teach an enhancement of the three-dimensional texture of the surface finish imparted on the brake disk. In paragraph [0025] the instant published application explains that the surface texture can be enhanced by controlling the depositing of the coating. Examiner notes that Meckel includes a control of the depositing of the coating as described in paragraph [0036] in which it mentions the following: “V.sub.BIAS is initially selected to be a relatively large negative voltage to achieve good adherence of the metallic first layer 28 (see FIG. 3) to the brake disk substrate 26. V.sub.BIAS is subsequently reduced (made less negative) when the overlying hard layer is deposited, to achieve a uniform, fine microstructure in the overlying layer. The values of V.sub.BIAS are desirably maintained as low as possible, consistent with obtaining an adherent coating 24.” Examiner maintains that such a description represents details regarding controlling the depositing which Applicant indicates represents how the surface texture can be enhanced. Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejections using Meckel, as modified.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached on 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
June 8, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights