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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 line 11, the phrase “andat” should be changed to “and at”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the rotation axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first ring" in line 1 and “the second ring” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the rotation axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The rotation axis now plays a significant role in the claim language, and as such is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the hub" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the rotation axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The rotation axis now plays a significant role in the claim language, and as such is unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the hub" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the radially inner surface" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,215,420 to Eksergian in view of US 2008/0135359 A1 to Basirico et al.
Re-claims 1, 6, 7 and 10, Eksergian teaches a brake disc for disc brake comprising: a braking band 9 rotating about a rotation axis; a bell 7 is rigidly and torsionally connected to a hub 8 of a vehicle and constrained to the braking band and adapted to transmit the rotational motion to the brake disc; the bell comprises at least one corrugated element (see figures 1 and 3 and corrugations as part of 7), the corrugations allow (i.e. transmit) a rotation of the bell which is integral with the hub about the rotation axis, a rotation of the disc 9 is constrained thereto, about an axis normal to the rotation axis through elastic deformation, and a translation along the rotation axis through elastic deformation (see page 1 column 2 lines 41-52). However, Eksergian fails to teach the bell or corrugated elements thereof made of a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material.
Basirico et al. teach a bell (hub or hat) of a brake disc made from a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material, and specifically carbon fibers (PAN, paragraph 19), ceramic fibers (paragraph 25) and mixtures thereof. This type of material replaces commonly used metal materials, thus reducing weight associated with the brake disc (see paragraphs 6 and 7) and thereby improving handling and fuel economy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bell as part of the brake disc of Eksergian from one of a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material, such as carbon fibers or ceramic fibers as taught by Basirico et al., thus reducing weight which leads to improved fuel economy and handling.
Re-claim 2, the corrugated elements are torsionally rigid and yielding in bending, as Eksergian teaches the elements provide some flexibility.
Re-claim 3, the corrugated elements have a first ring with an extension direction parallel to the axis of rotation (see figure 3) and a radial thickness with respect to the axis.
Re-claim 4, the corrugation comprises a first ring that is radially external to the axis (such as the outermost ring having passages 18), and a second ring that is radially internal to the axis (see innermost ring, figure 3).
Re-claim 5, the first ring and the second ring are connected to each other by connecting sections (such as portions between the ring extensions).
Re-claim 11, Eksergian teaches a brake disc for disc brake comprising: a braking band 9 rotating about a rotation axis; a bell 7 is rigidly and torsionally connected to a hub 4 of a vehicle and constrained to the braking band and is adapted to transmit the rotational motion to the brake disc; the bell comprises at least one corrugated element, adapted to allow a rotation of the bell, which is integral with the hub about the rotation axis, a rotation of the disc constrained thereto, about an axis normal to the rotation axis through elastic deformation (the corrugated structure allows for elastic deformation), and a translation along the rotation axis through elastic deformation wherein the corrugated element comprises: at least a first ring (such as 12) which is radially external with respect to the axis (the rotating axis can be defined anywhere, such as along bolt holes 31, or any corrugated feature) and a second ring (such as 14) which is radially internal with respect to the axis; and at least one connecting section (i.e. corrugated section or bend) interposed between the first ring and the second ring, the connecting section extends axially (the corrugated sections have an axial extent). However, Eksergian fails to teach the bell or corrugated elements thereof made of a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material.
Basirico et al. teach a bell (hub or hat) of a brake disc made from a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material, and specifically carbon fibers (PAN, paragraph 19), ceramic fibers (paragraph 25) and mixtures thereof. This type of material replaces commonly used metal materials, thus reducing weight associated with the brake disc (see paragraphs 6 and 7) and thereby improving handling and fuel economy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bell as part of the brake disc of Eksergian from one of a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material, such as carbon fibers or ceramic fibers as taught by Basirico et al., thus reducing weight which leads to improved fuel economy and handling.
Re-claim 12, Eksergian teaches a brake disc for disc brake comprising: a braking band 9 rotating about a rotation axis; a bell 7 is rigidly and torsionally connected to a hub 4 of a vehicle and constrained to the braking band and adapted to transmit the rotational motion to the brake disc; the bell comprises at least one corrugated element, adapted to allow a rotation of the bell, which is integral with the hub about the rotation axis, a rotation of the disc is constrained thereto, about an axis normal to the rotation axis through elastic deformation, a translation along the rotation axis through elastic deformation wherein the bell 7 and the braking band 9 are separate components, the bell further comprises a connecting portion 12 fixed to a radially inner surface of the braking band 9 (specifically to disc 10 of the band 9) to constrain the bell to the braking band. However, Eksergian fails to teach the bell or corrugated elements thereof made of a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material.
Basirico et al. teach a bell (hub or hat) of a brake disc made from a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material, and specifically carbon fibers (PAN, paragraph 19), ceramic fibers (paragraph 25) and mixtures thereof. This type of material replaces commonly used metal materials, thus reducing weight associated with the brake disc (see paragraphs 6 and 7) and thereby improving handling and fuel economy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bell as part of the brake disc of Eksergian from one of a fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon ceramic material, such as carbon fibers or ceramic fibers as taught by Basirico et al., thus reducing weight which leads to improved fuel economy and handling.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eksergian in view of Basirico et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2020/0247971 A1 to Cavalli et al.
Re-claims 8 and 9, Eksergian as modified by Basirico et al. teach the use of various fibers including silicon carbide, alumina. However, Eksergian as modified by Basirico et al. fail to suggest the first corrugated element made of a fiber-reinforced composite material of carbon-fiber-based with a siloxane matrix, or the matrix from siloxane.
Cavalli et al. teach a reinforced composite material that includes siloxane matrix, or silsequioxane resins. Each provides for high temperature operation (see paragraph 87), which is a desired feature for a brake disc bell section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fiber composition of Basirico et al. with siloxane matrix or silsequioxane resins as suggested by Cavalli et al., thus providing a material having high temperature operational ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the dependence of instant claim 5 has not been formally changed, as such the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
With regards to Basirico et al. and the use of carbon ceramic material or fiber-reinforced polymer. The entire disclosure of Basirico et al. describes the use of fiber-reinforced polymers as well as carbon ceramic materials. The CMC in particular may consist of a silicon carbide matrix, which has at least the carbon element. In addition, various embodiments envision the use of fibers for reinforcing the structure. Furthermore, in at least claim 10 of Basirico et al., it is contemplated that the rotor hat, which is equivalent to the bell structure 7 in Eksergian, may be made from the materials discussed in length within the disclosure. It is clear that Basirico et al. contemplates the use of carbon ceramic materials and fiber reinforced polymer (PAN) for various portions of a brake disc, including the bell or hat portion. This provides an advantageous weight reduction, which is always sought after, as this would improve overall fuel economy. As such this combination is not seen as hindsight, since Basirico et al. both teach the recited materials and provide a reason for using the recited materials.
The remarks regarding the advantage of using the fiber reinforced material or carbon ceramic material as providing anisotropic elastic properties are more specific than the claim language. In addition, the instant specification fails to state any of these advantages. The corrugated structure of Eksergian would have provided the elastic property that the applicant discloses, specifically Eksergian teaches the corrugated structure as providing a flexible structure, see at least column 1 lines 20-31. The instant disclosure does state a radial and axial deformation due to the corrugated structure. However, it is the opinion of the Office that the corrugated structure of Eksergian would provide for the same type, or substantially same type of deformation. As such the rejection is maintained.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights