DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 19, 2026 has been entered.
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 m, atter 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.
Claim 16, 17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,617,057 to Gorokhovsky et al. in view of US 4,643,951 to Keem et al. and in view of US 5,901,818 to Martino.
Re-claim 16, Gorokhovsky et al. teach a coating, comprising:
a first material comprising a vapor-deposited metal (a first metal layer is applied to a metal substrate, such as steel, see column 2 lines 57-59, using a vapor deposition technique) or an alloy thereof, the metal consists of a singular element (see at least column 7 lines 11-15, the selected metals may include titanium, chromium, aluminum, hafnium, or zirconium, see column 2 lines 46-50, see Table 1, these metals listed as singular and not as compounds),
a second material comprising a vapor-deposited binary metal compound (see column 7 lines 20-23 and Table 1), the first material and the second material constructing a pattern of repetition that is consistent with a (super, not stated) lattice structure (the lattice structure is formed by the repetitive layers applied to each side of the substrate) when applied over parallel surfaces (of the brake disk, not stated),
the coating has a total thickness up to 10 micrometers (see at least example 1 and stated total thickness of 3 micrometers), (the super lattice structure has a period of repetition of less than 100 angstrom, not stated). As indicated, Gorokhovsky et al. fail to teach the substrate comprising a brake disk, or the lattice structure forming a super lattice structure, defined as a period of repetition less than 100 angstroms.
Keem et al. teach a coating having repetitive thin layers applied to a substrate surface, the thin layers provide improved hardness, wear resistance and corrosion resistance (see column 2 lines 15-29). Each layer is about 50 angstroms (see column 1 lines 61-65) with a total overall coating thickness of up to 10 micrometers. The thin repetitive layers form a super lattice (as is consistent with the definition put forth by the applicant). The hardness and wear resistance of the coating of Gorokhovsky et al. would have been improved when having applied each layer at a thickness of about 50 angstroms thus defining a super lattice structure, as suggested by Keem et al. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have applied each of the repetitive layers of Gorokhovsky et al. at a thickness of less than 100 angstroms forming a super lattice structure as taught by Keem et al., thus improving the wear resistance, hardness and corrosion resistance of the coating.
Martino teaches a brake disc having a metal layer adjacent the disc body, and a ceramic layer applied thereupon forming a topcoat. This arrangement shows the use of a metal-ceramic coatings applied to a brake disc for reducing weight and improved thermal capabilities. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have recognized the advantage of having utilized the coating arrangement of Gorokhovsky et al. upon a brake disc as taught by Martino, thus providing high temperature operations while using a lighter metal substrate.
Re-claim 17, Gorokhovsky et al. teach the second material selected from metal Nitrides, metal Carbides, metal oxycarbides and metal oxynitrides.
Re-claim 19, Gorokhovsky et al. is silent regarding the crystalline structure. However, Keem et al. teach each layer may have a crystalline structure (see column 3 lines 24-45). This provides a coating with a more ordered arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have recognized the coating layers of Gorokhovsky et al. could be applied having a crystalline structure as suggested by Keem et al., thus forming a coating with a highly ordered arrangement.
Re-claims 20, 22 and 23, the metal oxycarbides and metal oxynitrides have an oxygen component and as such are interpreted as ceramic oxides, the metal nitrides and metal carbides are interpreted as ceramic non-oxides.
Re-claim 21, Gorokhovsky et al. teach the metals may include titanium, chromium, aluminum, hafnium, or zirconium, see column 2 lines 46-50, see Table 1. Gorokhovsky et al. is silent regarding the crystalline structure.
Keem et al. teach each layer may have a crystalline structure (see column 3 lines 24-45). This provides a coating with a more ordered arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have recognized the metal layers of Gorokhovsky et al. could be applied having a crystalline structure as suggested by Keem et al., thus forming a coating with a highly ordered arrangement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to anticipate or suggest application of a coating having a first material comprising vapor deposited metal or alloy thereof, and a second material comprising vapor deposited binary compound thus forming a super lattice structure upon a ceramic substrate.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16, 17, 19-24, 26 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. D’Couto teaches a coating having a vapor deposited metal layer, and a vapor deposited compound layer.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
June 4, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights