DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 line 7 (ii) the limitation of “.. a net shape” is not understood. What are the metes and bounds of ‘net shape’?
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) 15-17,19-21,26,27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. 6,371,261 in view of Morgan et al. 5,163,526 and Dietrich et al. 6,079,525.
Regarding claim 15 Thompson shows a brake shoe assembly 28,32 for “high load elevators installed in tall buildings” in figures 2+ where the brake pad 32 can be made from a friction material having 99.4 percent molybdenum (claim 1).
Lacking in Thompson is a specific showing of using the material for a brake disk.
The reference to Morgan et al. shows a friction element that may comprise a brake disk in the several embodiments where the framework 1 thereof and the matrix 2 may be formed from alloys based on “molybdenum, tungsten and copper” for “heavy load friction units”.
The reference to Dietrich shows a brake unit consisting of a brake disc and a brake lining. Note at least in the abstract Dietrich states in the abstract and col 1 around lines 39-40 it is known in the art that brake disks and brake linings can be made from the same material.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have also made a brake disc, according to the teachings of Thompson, from a material comprised of 99.4 percent molybdenum since Morgan teaches that such brake discs can be made of a molybdenum based alloy for “heavy load friction units”—such as those that may be used in “high load elevators in tall buildings”. Further, Dietrich indicates it is known to make a brake disc and a brake lining of the same materials. This may have the added benefits of reducing time and costs.
Regarding claim 16, as broadly claimed, the brake disc of Thompson as modified above would inherently have a circumferential friction section.
Regarding claim 17 since the brake disc of Thompson is also comprised of a small amount of titanium and zirconium the disc can be said to be of a ‘composite material’, as broadly claimed.
Regarding claims 19-21 these limitations are met.
Regarding claims 26,27 the brake caliper is considered to be element 20 in Thompson.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson/Morgan/Dietrich as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of WO 2007/043961A1.
Regarding claim 18 Thompson, as modified, lacks specifically using a molybdenum based coating with a molybdenum content >+ 50 percent.
However WO ‘961 teaches a brake rotor with a wear resistant coating 5 comprising of between 50-99 percent molybdenum by weight.
It would have been obvious to have coated the brake rotor of Thompson, as modified above, with a coating as taught by WO ‘961A since it is well known to provide abrasion resistant coatings in both heavy load and high speed applications of brake discs.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson/Morgan/Dietrich as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of CN 103074540B
Regarding claim 22 Thompson, as modified, lacks the specified amounts of carbon and boron.
The publication to CN ‘540 shows that these elements are typically found in composite materials for disc brakes that also contain molybdenum. See at least the abstract.
It would have been obvious to have added trace amounts of boron and carbon to the molybdenum disc brake of Thompson, since these materials are typically added or are inherent elements for both strength and wear resistance.
Claim(s) 23,24,28,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson/Morgan/Dietrich as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of the U.S. Publication to Kuboto et al. 2019/0292634.
Regarding claims 23,24 Thompson as modified above, lacks the specific steps of making a brake disc from powder metallurgy involving the manufacturing steps of pressing and sintering.
However the reference to Kubota teaches it is known to make a composite friction material using these methods for ‘heavy load applications”. See paras 0022-0029 and claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the brake disc of Thompson, according to the methods taught by Kuboto, since this method is old and well known in the art and would be obvious simply dependent upon the choice of method of manufacture/expenses.
Regarding claims 28,29 Thompson, as further modified by Kubota, teaches the claimed method as explained above and as broadly claimed. Note the cutting step in para 0093.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson/Morgan/Dietrich as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of the U.S. Publication to Hirasawa 2012/0048662
Regarding claim 25 it would have been obvious to have made the disc of Thompson for use with a bicycle, as taught by Hirasawa in para 0002, since it is known that such brake discs are applicable to other types of vehicles.
Conclusion
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
11/9/25