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 .
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, 2, 4, 5, 10-12, 14, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-202015009048 (DE’048) in view of JP-H0352429 (JP’429).
Re: claims 1 and 11. DE’048 shows in an alternate interpretation of figures 1-3 a wet disk brake by virtue of the presence of oil as mentioned in the paragraph beginning “if such a rotating friction part” with external oiling of a friction surface having a circumference as shown in figure 1 wherein the friction surface has a circumferential groove 31 running in a zigzag or undulating shape or a groove running around the circumference particularly a zigzag as shown, but is silent with regard to the circumferential groove being closed radially on an inside relative to the friction surface.
JP'429 teaches in figure 4 the use of a circumferential groove 36 being closed on the inside relative to the friction surface.
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 circumferential groove of DE'048 to have been closed radially on the inside relative to the friction surface, in view of the teachings of JP'429, in order to provide better cooling control and temperature stability by forcing fluid to flow across the friction surface outwardly by centrifugal force.
Re: clams 2 and 12. DE’048, as modified, teaches in figures 1-3 of DE’048 wherein inlet grooves through which oil enters the circumferential groove from the outside each having a widening radially on the outside relative to the friction surface as shown in figure 3 where a slight widening is shown. See for example at the end of the lead arrow of C in figure 3.
Re: claims 4 and 14. DE’048, as modified, teaches in figures 1-3 of DE’048 wherein friction lining pieces B1, B2, B3, which delimit the circumferential groove radially on the outside particularly B3 and the inlet grooves in the circumferential direction particularly B1 and B2, have bevels or chamfers facing one another in the circumferential direction to constitute a funnel-like widening of the inlet groove radially on the outside see the circumferential outer portions of B1 and B2 in figure 3.
Re: claims 5 and 15. DE’048, as modified, teaches in figure 3 an inlet groove 33 having a width at the initial opening of element 33 shown to be greater (wider angled opening) than the width of the circumferential groove 32 by a given percentage, but is silent with regard to the particular percentage range of groove width of the inlet groove with respect to the groove width of the circumferential groove.
Where 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).
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 inlet groove of DE’048, a modified, to have been at least thirty percent greater than the circumferential groove width, in view of the teachings of DE’048 and In re Aller, in order to provide a means of reducing inlet flow restriction particularly at high speeds or high loads and to improve the entry of air into the circumferential groove which increases convective cooling.
Re: claims 10 and 20. DE’048, as modified, teaches in figures 1-3 of DE’048 wherein the friction surface in addition to the circumferential groove 31 has at least one further zig zag shaped or undulating groove running around the circumference or at least one further groove running tangentially around the circumference or particularly at least one further zig zag shaped groove 32 as shown.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’048 in view of JP’429 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2008/0041675 to Baumgartner et al.
DE’048, as modified, is silent with regard to the shape of the friction lining pieces being trapezoidal-shaped.
Baumgartner et al. teach in paragraph [0026] the use of segments with a trapezoidal shape and other shapes.
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 shape of the friction lining pieces of DE’048, as modified, being trapezoidal shape, in view of the teachings of Baumgartner et al., in order to provide a means of improving airflow and turbulence generation depending on the particular application.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’048 in view of JP’429 as applied above, and further in view of EP-1783390 (EP’390).
DE’048, as modified, is silent with regard to the circumferential groove having a blind groove between two inlets 33 and is silent with regard to the blind groove having a rectangle shape.
EP’390 teaches in figure 2 the use of a circumferential groove having a rectangle shaped blind groove 24b.
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 circumferential groove of DE’048, as modified, to have included a rectangle shaped blind groove, in view of the teachings of EP’390, in order to provide a local heat sink effect which results in good absorption of thermal energy and also adds extra surface area to exchange heat with the surrounding air.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’048 in view of JP’429 and EP-1783390 (EP’390) as applied above, and further in view of US Patent 8474590 to Fabricius et al.
DE’048, as modified, is silent with regard to the blind hole having the shape of a semi-circle.
Fabricius et al. teach in figure 4 the use of a blind hole 70 having the shape of a semi-circle.
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 circumferential groove of DE’048, as modified, to have included a semi-circle shaped blind groove, in view of the teachings of Fabricius et al., in order to provide a local heat sink effect which results in good absorption of thermal energy and also adds extra surface area to exchange heat with the surrounding air.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's submission filed 12/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant fails to provide arguments to particularly point out supposed errors associated with Examiner’s most recent rejections. Examiner has maintained the rejections of claims 6 and 16 now appearing to be incorporated in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, since no arguments have been presented.
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 at 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 23, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616