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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 10/17/2025 have been considered and entered. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7 have been amended, claim 6 has been canceled, and claims 15-21 have been newly added. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending in the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 18-19 are 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French et al. (US 2020/0292017 A1) in view of Watts (US 2,407,197) or Ren (CN 109058328 B).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, French et al. discloses a wheel and brake assembly (figs. 1A-4) comprising:
a stator (34);
a rotating assembly (114) mounted around and rotatable relative to the stator about an axis A;
a torque tube (122) in fixed engagement with the stator;
a stack of brake disks (32) mounted about the torque tube, the stack of brake disks comprising alternate rotor disks and stator disks, the stator disks attached to the torque tube and the rotor disks attached to the rotating assembly;
a brake actuator (130) configured to, in response to a brake command, apply a pressing force on the stack of brake disks to cause frictional engagement between the rotor disks and the stator disks such that the stator disks limit rotation of the rotor disks and, hence the rotating assembly, relative to the torque tube;
wherein the stator disks (34) are attached to the torque tube (122) by means of a plurality of splines (156) around the torque tube and a plurality of recesses in the stator disks in which the splines engage;
wherein the rotor disks (32) are attached to the rotating assembly by means of a plurality of torque bars (124, 222, 300) extending radially inwards from the rotating assembly and a plurality of recesses in the rotor disks with which the torque bars engage.
French et al. discloses at least one or more of the plurality of torque bars or one or more of the plurality of splines has a second cavity (notes abstract, [0003]-[0007] and 328 in fig. 3B) formed therein and wherein various options of materials is provided in the cavity but fails to disclose any of the materials to be liquid sodium as recited in the claim. Each of Watts and Ren discloses a brake assembly comprising a brake member having cavity provided with sodium (note col. 1, lines 14-16 of Watts and claim 3 of Ren where metal sodium turn into liquid sodium due heat). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to include sodium as taught by each of Watts and Ren since it is cheap, easily available and using metal sodium with high specific heat capacity, high thermal conductivity characteristics, braking energy absorption part, and acceleration is generated by braking so as to improve thermal deterioration performance of the vehicle brake of French et al..
Re-claim 17, the modified device of French et al. discloses one or some of the plurality of torque bars (330 in fig. 3C of French et al.) are not provided with the second cavity.
Re-claim 20, the modified device of French et al. discloses the metallic sodium changes to liquid at 100 deg. C (note Ren disclose the metal sodium start transforming to liquid sodium at 90 deg. C and thus it understood that at 100 deg. C the metallic sodium will be liquid).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616