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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/26 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9670975 to Rook in view of US Patent 4383594 to Correll et al. and GB-2438633 (GB’633).
Re: claims 1, 5, 8, and 9. Rook shows in figure 3 a torque tube 301 comprising an outer wall made from a first material; a plurality of passages 340 formed in the outer wall concentrically around a central axis of the torque tube wherein each passage in the plurality of passages spans a center line of the torque tube and spans a majority of a length of the longitudinal length of the torque tube as shown in figure 3 to the same extent that it does in Applicant’s invention as best understood; and a plurality of reinforcement members 350 wherein each reinforcement member in the plurality of reinforcement members is encased in the outer wall as disclosed in col. 6 lines 62-68 and wherein the plurality of reinforcement member is made from a second material, but is silent with regards to the second material having a higher temperature strength than the first material, and is silent with regard to the each reinforcement member being completely encased in the outer wall within a passage of the plurality of passages.
Correll et al. teach in col. 3 lines 55-57 the use of a torque tube 50 comprising an outer wall made of a first material or steel and teaches in col. 4 lines 2-4 the use of reinforcement members 60 being made of a second material or titanium which has a higher temperature strength than the first material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second material of the reinforcement members of Rook to have had a higher temperature strength than the first material of the torque tube, in view of the teachings of Correll et al., in order to provide a means of protecting the structural integrity of the torque tube particularly in high temperature conditions. With regard to claim 8 see figure 3 of Rook and the arrangement of the reinforcement members with respect to central axis A-A’. With regard to claim 9 see figure 3 of Rook showing the reinforcement members being inserted from the left side which is opposite a flange end 304.
GB’633 teaches in figure 9 the use of a reinforcement member, as labeled, being completely encased in an outer wall within a passage as shown.
[AltContent: textbox (Reinforcement member)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
199
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified encased reinforcements of Rook, as modified, to have been completely encased, in view of the teachings of GB’633, in order to provide an initial means of protection for the reinforcements to increase overall durability and longevity.
Re: claim 5. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook the limitation wherein the plurality of reinforcing members span the center line of the torque tube and span the majority of the longitudinal length of the torque tube to the same extent as Applicant’s invention since in figure 8 of the instant invention it is shown that reinforcement member 14 does not span the entire length of the torque tube, but is silent with regard to the member specifically being a rod.
GB’633 teaches in figure 9 the use of a reinforcement member being in the form of a rod 43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reinforcement members of Rook, as modified, to have been rods, in view of the teachings of GB’633, in order to provide a member that is easy to fabricate, that is mass produced, and therefore cost effective.
Re: claim 7. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook the limitation wherein the outer wall further comprises a plurality of drive keys or the portion of the outer wall surrounding the passages 340 formed as a single piece with the outer wall and made from the first material and each passage in the plurality of passages is located within a drive key in the plurality of drive keys.
Re: claim 21. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook wherein each passage in the plurality of passages 340 has an opening on one end or the left end as shown and the opening is designed to be closed off (as broadly recited by having landings on either side of the opening to which a closure may be attached) to capture a reinforcement member from the plurality of reinforcement members after insertion.
Claim(s) 3, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rook in view of Correll et al. and GB’633 as applied above, and further in view of JP-2013060348 (JP’348).
Rook, as modified, is silent with regards to the second material being tungsten.
JP’348 teaches in the second claim the use of a reinforcement member being made of tungsten.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second material of the reinforcement members of Rook, as modified, to have been tungsten, in view of the teachings of JP’348, in order to provide a material with great resistance to high temperatures which is beneficial in the brake environment. With regard to claim 19 also see the rejection of claims 1 and 7 above. With regard to claim 20 see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rook in view of Correll et al., GB’633, and JP’348 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2013/0199878 to Houser.
Re: claim 4. Rook, as modified, are silent with regards to the first material being stainless steel.
Houser teaches in paragraph [0035] the use of a torque tube being made of stainless steel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first material of the torque tube of Rook, as modified, to have been stainless steel, in view of the teachings of Houser, in order to provide a material with great resistance to corrosion which is beneficial in the brake environment since the brakes are exposed to the elements.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15-17, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9670975 to Rook in view of US Patent 4383594 to Correll et al. and GB-2438633 (GB’633) and US Patent Application 2004/0065205 to Nalette et al.
Re: claims 10 and 12. Rook, as modified, shows in figure 3 of Rook wherein the plurality of passages 340 span 80% or more of the longitudinal length of the torque tube because the passages extend from the left (where the passage depth is deeper) end to the flange end (where the passage depth is more shallow) and shows the reinforcement members 350 spanning a distance along the longitudinal length of the torque tube, but is silent with regard to the reinforcement members particularly spanning 80% of the torque tube length.
Nalette et al. teach in paragraph [0010] the use of support rods or reinforcement members extending the entire or 100% of the length of an object being supported.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified spanning of the reinforcement members of Rook, as modified, to have been 75% or more or 80% or more, in view of the teachings of Nalette et al., in order to provide better stress distribution and crack control to improve overall durability of the object being reinforced. With regard to claim 12, also see the rejection of claim 1.
Also see In re Aller. In In re Aller the court held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner notes that the originally filed disclosure fails to provide explanation of criticality associated with the 75% or 80% or more range.
Re: claim 15. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook the limitation wherein the plurality of reinforcing members span the center line of the torque tube and span the majority of the longitudinal length of the torque tube to the same extent as Applicant’s invention since in figure 8 of the instant invention it is shown that reinforcement member 14 does not span the entire length of the torque tube, but is silent with regard to the member specifically being a rod.
GB’633 teaches in figure 9 the use of a reinforcement member being in the form of a rod 43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reinforcement members of Rook, as modified, to have been rods, in view of the teachings of GB’633, in order to provide a member that is easy to fabricate, that is mass produced, and therefore cost effective.
Re: claim 16. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook the limitation wherein the outer wall further comprises a plurality of drive keys or the portion of the outer wall surrounding the passages 340 formed as a single piece with the outer wall and made from the first material and each passage in the plurality of passages is located within a drive key in the plurality of drive keys.
Re: claim 17. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook the limitation wherein the plurality of reinforcement members 350 are spaced symmetrically about the central axis and equidistant from adjacent reinforcement members.
Re: claim 23. Rook, as modified, teaches in figure 3 of Rook wherein each passage in the plurality of passages 340 has an opening on one end or the left end as shown and the opening is designed to be closed off (as broadly recited by having landings on either side of the opening to which a closure may be attached) to capture a reinforcement member from the plurality of reinforcement members after insertion.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rook in view of Correll et al. and GB’633 and Nalette et al. as applied above, and further in view of JP-2013060348 (JP’348).
Rook, as modified, is silent with regards to the second material being tungsten.
JP’348 teaches in the second claim the use of a reinforcement member being made of tungsten.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second material of the reinforcement members of Rook, as modified, to have been tungsten, in view of the teachings of JP’348, in order to provide a material with great resistance to high temperatures which is beneficial in the brake environment. With regard to claim 19 also see the rejection of claims 1 and 7 above. With regard to claim 20 see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2006/0201754 to Dyko et al. in view of US Patent 4383594 to Correll et al. and GB-2438633 (GB’633).
Re: claims 1, 5, 8, and 9. Dyko et al. show in the figure a torque tube 12 comprising an outer wall made from a first material; a plurality of passages, starting at 22 and extending as labeled, formed in the outer wall concentrically around a central axis of the torque tube wherein each passage in the plurality of passages spans a center line of the torque tube and spans a majority of a length of the longitudinal length of the torque tube as shown in the figure to the same extent that it does in Applicant’s invention as best understood; and a plurality of reinforcement members 24 wherein each reinforcement member in the plurality of reinforcement members is encased in the outer wall or particularly portion surrounding element 22 and wherein the plurality of reinforcement member is made from a second material, but is silent with regards to the second material having a higher temperature strength than the first material.
Correll et al. teach in col. 3 lines 55-57 the use of a torque tube 50 comprising an outer wall made of a first material or steel and teaches in col. 4 lines 2-4 the use of reinforcement members 60 being made of a second material or titanium which has a higher temperature strength than the first material.
[AltContent: textbox (Flange end )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Passage )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
589
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second material of the reinforcement members of Dyko et al. to have had a higher temperature strength than the first material of the torque tube, in view of the teachings of Correll et al., in order to provide a means of protecting the structural integrity of the torque tube particularly in high temperature conditions. With regard to claim 8 see the figure of Dyko et al. and the arrangement of the reinforcement members 24 with respect to center which would be the location of the central axis. With regard to claim 9 see the figure of Dyko et al. showing the reinforcement members 24 being inserted from the left side which is opposite a flange end 304.
GB’633 teaches in figure 9 the use of a reinforcement member, as labeled, being completely encased in an outer wall within a passage as shown.
[AltContent: textbox (Reinforcement member)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
199
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified encased reinforcements of Dyko, as modified, to have been completely encased, in view of the teachings of GB’633, in order to provide an initial means of protection for the reinforcements to increase overall durability and longevity.
Re: claim 7. Dyko et al., as modified, teaches in the figure of Dyko et al. the limitation wherein the outer wall further comprises a plurality of drive keys or the portion of the outer wall surrounding the passages 22 and as labeled formed as a single piece with the outer wall and made from the first material and each passage in the plurality of passages is located within a drive key in the plurality of drive keys.
Re: claim 21. Dyko et al., as modified, teaches in the figure of Dyko et al. wherein each passage in the plurality of passages 22 and as labeled has an opening on one end and the opening is designed to be closed off (as broadly recited by having landings on either side of the opening to which a closure may be attached) to capture a reinforcement member from the plurality of reinforcement members after insertion.
Re: claim 22. Dyko et al., as modified, teaches in the figure of Dyko et al. the limitation wherein the opening 22 is a bolt hole as shown.
Claim(s) 3, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyko et al. in view of Correll et al. and GB’633 as applied above, and further in view of JP-2013060348 (JP’348).
Dyko et al., as modified, are silent with regards to the second material being tungsten.
JP’348 teaches in the second claim the use of a reinforcement member being made of tungsten.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second material of the reinforcement members of Dyko et al., as modified, to have been tungsten, in view of the teachings of JP’348, in order to provide a material with great resistance to high temperatures which is beneficial in the brake environment. It is noted that tungsten has a higher temperature strength than steel. With regard to claim 19 also see the rejection of claims 1 and 7 above. With regard to claim 20 see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyko et al. in view of Correll et al., GB’633, and JP’348 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2013/0199878 to Houser.
Re: claim 4. Dyko et al., as modified, are silent with regards to the first material being stainless steel.
Houser teaches in paragraph [0035] the use of a torque tube being made of stainless steel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first material of the torque tube of Dyko et al., as modified, to have been stainless steel, in view of the teachings of Houser, in order to provide a material with great resistance to corrosion which is beneficial in the brake environment since the brakes are exposed to the elements.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15-17, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyko et al. in view of US Patent 4383594 to Correll et al. and GB-2438633 (GB’633) and US Patent Application 2004/0065205 to Nalette et al.
Re: claims 10, 12, 15, and 17. Dyko et al., as modified, shows in the figure of Dyko et al. wherein the plurality of passages 22 and as labeled span 80% or more of the longitudinal length of the torque tube because the passages extend from 22 to the flange end and shows the reinforcement members 24 spanning a distance along the longitudinal length of the torque tube, but is silent with regard to the reinforcement members particularly spanning 80% of the torque tube length.
Nalette et al. teach in paragraph [0010] the use of support rods or reinforcement members extending the entire or 100% of the length of an object being supported.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified spanning of the reinforcement members of Dyko et al., as modified, to have been 75% or more or 80% or more, in view of the teachings of Nalette et al., in order to provide better stress distribution and crack control to improve overall durability of the object being reinforced. With regard to claim 12, also see the rejection of claim 1.
In In re Aller the court held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner notes that the originally filed disclosure fails to provide explanation of criticality associated with the 75% or more or 80% or more range.
Re: claim 16. Dyko et al., as modified, teaches in the figure of Dyko et al. the limitation wherein the outer wall further comprises a plurality of drive keys or the portion of the outer wall surrounding the passages 22 and as labeled formed as a single piece with the outer wall and made from the first material and each passage in the plurality of passages is located within a drive key in the plurality of drive keys.
Re: claim 23. Dyko et al., as modified, teaches in the figure of Dyko et al. wherein each passage in the plurality of passages 22 and as labeled has an opening on one end and the opening is designed to be closed off (as broadly recited by having landings on either side of the opening to which a closure may be attached) to capture a reinforcement member from the plurality of reinforcement members after insertion.
Re: claim 24. Dyko et al., as modified, teaches in the figure of Dyko et al. the limitation wherein the opening 22 is a bolt hole as shown.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyko et al. in view of Correll et al. and GB’633 and Nalette et al. as applied above, and further in view of JP-2013060348 (JP’348).
Dyko et al., as modified, are silent with regards to the second material being tungsten.
JP’348 teaches in the second claim the use of a reinforcement member being made of tungsten.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second material of the reinforcement members of Dyko et al., as modified, to have been tungsten, in view of the teachings of JP’348, in order to provide a material with great resistance to high temperatures which is beneficial in the brake environment.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyko et al. in view of Correll et al., GB’633 and JP’348 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2010/0014913 to Murgatroyd et al.
Dyko et al., as modified, are silent with regard to each passage in the plurality of passages being closed except for a bolt hole on one end.
Murgatroyd et al. teach in figures 1 and 3 the use of a device in which a passage encasing a rod 24 is closed except for a hole on one right end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified each passage of Dyko et al., as modified, to have been closed with the exception of one bold hole at one end, in view of the teachings of Murgatroyd et al., in order to provide a means of protecting the rod from being exposed to debris and the environment which can help to improve the life of the rods and their reinforcement capability over time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references used in the previous Office action. The drawing and 112 rejection have been withdrawn in light of the most recent remarks filed 2/6/26.
With regard to the use of Rook, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rook with the teachings of Correll because the sacrificial members must be softer than the torque tube in Rook. Examiner notes that a material can still be softer at lower temperatures and still have a higher strength at high temperatures. With regard to the use of the JP’348 reference Applicant appears to argue that the reference is non-analogous. Examiner notes however that while JP’348 may not be in the same field of endeavor, the reference satisfies the second prong – it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of needing a material that has high strength at high temperatures.
With regard to the use of Dyko, Examiner clarifies that she is referring not simply to the bolt hole but the section extending beyond the bolt hole. As modified, the entire section would be completely encased. And that encasement would still be considered as encasing the reinforcement area even if the reinforcement member did not extend the entire length of the encasement, as broadly recited. With regard to the use of the JP’348 reference please see the response to the non-analogous art argument set forth above.
Conclusion
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
February 20, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616