DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations (i.e. structural features) of claims 1-21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note: The examiner does not believe the aforementioned limitations of claims 1-21 can be added to any set of new drawings submitted without adding new matter to the application since no drawings have been submitted in the application as originally filed. It is recommended applicants file a continuation -in-part application with drawings showing these limitations for proper examination and prosecution of these claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-21 the structural limitations of these claims have not been shown in the drawings (none have been submitted with the application as originally filed). For instance in claim 1 what is the difference between the “at least one layer of a metallic semifinished and the surface region..”? (This can not be determined without “undue experimentation”).
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 7-8,10,13,15,19,21 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.
Regarding claims 7-8,10,13,15,19,21 the limitation of “and/or” is indefinite. Which limitation is it?
Claim 19 “the segments” lack antecedent basis.
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) 1-5,10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau et al. U.S. 2005/0183909 in view of Retting 11,725,704.
Regarding claim 1, subject to the drawing and 112 rejections above, (and as best understood) – and as broadly claimed-- Rau discloses in figures 1 and 3:
A method of producing a braking element having at least one metallic main body 124,134 having at least one surface region 134 for forming a friction surface.
Lacking in Rau (as best understood) is at least one “layer” of a metallic semifinished product positioned at least partly on the surface region intended for forming of the friction surface and is subsequently cohesively bonded to the metallic main body by joining methods.
The reference to Rettig shows it is well known to provide brake rotor surfaces with ‘layers’ 4,5 that can be laser polished or smoothed by grinding (i.e. a finishing step).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have provided the rotor surfaces 134 of Rau with at least one coating 4,5 as taught by Rettig and bonded by the joining methods disclosed in Rettig for protection against both abrasion and corrosion.
Regarding claims 2-5,10,11 as broadly claimed and as best understood, Rau as modified by Rettig meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12 as broadly claimed (and as best understood) Rau meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13 note Rettig uses duplex steel for the anti corrosion layer and SiC for the anti abrasion layer.
Regarding claim 14 note Retting discloses in col 3 that With high-speed laser deposition welding, layers with a thickness of 100 μm to 300 μm can be produced with a single coat or, alternatively, multiple coats, and it is furthermore even possible to achieve standard deviations of less than 20 μm.
Regarding claim 15 it would have been obvious to have used a ‘joining zone’ simply as a bonding zone of some type for adhesion of the coatings/layers of Rettig to the surface 134 of Rau.
Regarding claims 16,17 Rau, as modified, meets the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6-9,18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau/Rettig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bean et al. 12,270,443.
Regarding claim 6 Rau, as modified, lacks specifically showing the at least one layer consisting of segments.
The reference to Bean shows a rotor with similar construction to that of Rau but shows in figures 2 and 3 the layer 204 can alternative be formed in segments.
It would have been obvious to have formed the layer 134 in Rau from segments, as taught by Bean in fig 3, which may make assembly or mass production of component parts easier.
Regarding claims 7-9 as discussed in Bean in col 4 lines 1-23 (and as best understood) these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claims 18,19 these limitations are met by Rau, as modified.
Claim(s) 20,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau/Rettig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102019122613A1.
Regarding claims 20,21 it would have been obvious to have added a wear recognition feature(s) to the wear surface 134 of Rau, as modified, for just that reason as taught by DE ‘613 via the inserts at 30.
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
10/26/25