DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,11- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by EP 2469116 A1.
Regarding claims 1,11 EP ‘116 shows in figures 1, 4C and 5:
A Brake disc for a motor vehicle, the brake disc 30 having at least one first friction ring with: a first side surface having a friction surface; a second side surface opposite the first side surface; and a circumferential surface connecting the first side surface and second side surface (see figs 1,5 and 6); wherein the circumferential surface comprises a plurality of structural features P1, P2, P3 distributed in a circumferential direction, each structural feature comprising a projecting portion or a recessed portion, wherein the structural features are non-uniformly sized (P1 vs. P2) and are non-regularly distributed along the circumferential surface (fig 4C), and wherein at least one of the structural features overlaps an axial center of the circumferential surface (fig 5) and extends across at least half of an axial width of the circumferential surface.
See the machine translation of this document in its entirety.
Regarding claim 11, as broadly claimed, note the circumferential surface has an ‘angular segment’ containing features P2-P3.
EP ‘116 states :(Similarly, for a brake disc having only three projecting segments, the projecting segments are not angularly spaced apart by 120 °).
Regarding claim 2, as readily apparent from the figures, EP ‘116 meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12 the limitation on line 4 is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3,4,8-10,13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘116 in view of Wickert 5,855,257..
Regarding claims 3,4 EP ‘116 lacks specifically showing that the projecting portion P1-P3 has a rounded shape…
The reference to Wickert shows a vibration damper arrangement for a brake disc in the multiple different embodiments with variable shaped dampers and in figure 9b shows that the vibration damper can take on a rounded shape.
In the machine translation EP 116’ states:
It goes without saying that the projecting segments may have the same dimensions or different dimensions.
Since EP ‘116 seems to indicate that the shapes of the structural features are not locked into any particular shape it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the structural features P1-P3 with a ‘rounded shape’ or ‘rounded cross section’ simply as an obvious choice of design or dependent upon the specific frequencies to be damped.
Regarding claims 8,13 EP ‘116 lacks specifically showing that the brake disc comprises a second friction ring.
However Wickert shows a well known type of brake disc comprising first and second friction rings 12,14 in figure 2 that have vibration dampers 16.
It would have been obvious to have used a brake disc comprised of first and second friction rings in EP ‘116, as taught by Wickert, simply dependent upon the application of the railway vehicle.
Regarding claims 9,14 Wickert indicates in figure 2 that the structural features 18 of the first and second friction rings could be the same.
It would have been obvious to have used the same structural feature arrangement for the first and second rings dependent upon the specific frequencies to be damped.
Regarding claims 10,15 since both EP ‘116 and Wickert indicate that the shape and/or arrangement of the structural features could differ, as well as in their circumferential placement, the limitations of claim 10 are considered to be met.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘116 in view of DE 102012005908 B4.
Regarding claim 5 EP ‘116 lacks specifically showing a recessed portion as part of the structural features P1-P3.
The reference to DE ‘908 shows a similar vibration damper arrangement for a brake disc 14 at 18 and 20 and shows that elements 20 may reside in a recessed portion 16.
It would have been obvious to have placed the structural features P1-P3 into recessed portions, as shown by DE ‘908 at 16, simply to provide a more secure arrangement and minimize the risk that the structural features P1-P3 could come loose from the disk.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s claimed limitation to claim independent 1 of “wherein at least one of the structural features overlaps an axial center of the circumferential surface (fig 5) and extends across at least half of an axial width of the circumferential surface”. . was not in the claims as originally filed.
Independent Claim 11 is new.
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 CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
2/10/26