Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/376,140

Brake disk with an interlayer having a shape elasticity

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Examiner
TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
628 granted / 742 resolved
+32.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
786
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 742 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed October 3, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the German Office Action has not been 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. Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “in particular” in line 5. It is unclear whether the limitations are included in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mennell et al. (GB 2553835 A). Re claim 1, Mennell et al. disclose a brake disk for a disk brake system, comprising: a first friction ring (33a) for engagement with a first brake pad, a second friction ring (33b) for engagement with a second brake pad opposite to the first brake pad, and an interlayer (21) interposed between the first friction ring and the second friction ring, the interlayer having a shape elasticity and being configured to be compressed in an axial direction during application of brake pressure by way of the brake pads.(Fig. 2A, Pg 11, 3rd Par.) Re claim 2, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the shape elasticity is provided by way of at least one hole (23) or recess in the interlayer (21). (Fig. 3A-B) Re claim 3, Mennell et al. disclose wherein a width of the at least one hole or recess in the axial direction is at least 3 mm to at most 5 mm (Pg. 7, 1st Par.), wherein a thickness of each of the friction rings in the axial direction is between 4 mm and 8 mm (Page 11, 4th Par.) or a thickness of the interlayer in the axial direction is between 7 mm and 15 mm. (Page 11, 4th Par.) Re claim 4, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer (21) comprises at least one hole or recess extending circumferentially at least along a part of a circumference of the brake disk or at least one hole extending radially along at least a portion of a width of the interlayer. (Fig. 2B, 3A, 3B) Re claim 5, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer (21) comprises at least one hole or recess that is connected to a circumferentially inner edge or a circumferentially outer edge of the interlayer. (Fig. 2B, 3A, 3B) Re claim 6, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer (21) comprises at least one hole or recess that is spherical, cube-shaped, or cuboid- shaped. (Fig. 2A) Re claim 7, Mennell et al. does not explicitly state wherein the interlayer comprises at least one hole having a cross section that is elliptical or almond- shaped or drop-shaped or rectangular. However, Mennell et al. states on page 6, 7th Par. that the cavities may be of any shape. Re claim 8, Mennell et al. disclose at least two holes or recesses that are arranged out-of-plane with regard to each other, as considered in a plane that is orthogonal to the axial direction. (Fig. 2A – 3B) Re claim 9, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer (21) is connected to a hub of the brake disk or wherein one of the first friction ring and the second friction ring is connected to the hub of the brake disk. (See 31, Fig. 2B) Re claim 10, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer (21) and the first friction ring and the second friction ring (33a, 33b) are formed by separate parts that have been joined together, and/or wherein the interlayer (21) is made from a different material than the first friction ring and the second friction ring, in particular from a material with a higher elasticity and/or lower brittleness. (Pg. 11, 2nd Par.) Re claim 11, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer comprises or consists of steel and/or grey cast iron and/or aluminum. (Pg. 1, Par. 5, Pg. 2, Par. 1, Pg. 3, 4th Par.) Re claim 12, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the first friction ring and the second friction ring comprise or consist of grey cast iron and/or ceramics. (Pg. 1, Par. 5, Pg. 2, Par. 1 Pg. 3, 4th Par.) Re claim 13, Mennell et al. disclose wherein the interlayer (21) is configured to be compressed by at most 0.25 mm or at most 0.2 mm or at most 0.15 mm or at most 0.1 mm. (Page 11, 2nd Par.) 7. Claims 1, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1251039 A. Re claim 1, GB ‘039 disclose a brake disk for a disk brake system, comprising: a first friction ring (13) for engagement with a first brake pad, a second friction ring (14) for engagement with a second brake pad opposite to the first brake pad, and an interlayer (19) interposed between the first friction ring and the second friction ring, the interlayer having a shape elasticity and being configured to be compressed in an axial direction during application of brake pressure by way of the brake pads. (Fig. 1-2) Re claim 7, GB ‘039 disclose wherein the interlayer comprises at least one hole (15) having a cross section that is elliptical or almond- shaped or drop-shaped or rectangular. (Fig. 1) 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. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mennell et al. (GB 2553835 A). Re claim 14, Mennell et al. do not teach wherein the interlayer is configured to be compressed by at least 0.1 mm or at least 0.15 mm or at least 0.2 mm at a brake pressure of 70 bars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provided the desired compression amount since one of ordinary skill in the art could select a compression amount from the known dimensions to provide elastic deformation and gripping with a reasonable expectation of success. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al., GB ‘274, Eksergian, Dessouki et al., Zboralski et al., and Aschoff et al. teach similar brake disks. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM. 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 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. /MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583421
DRUM BRAKE WITH ROTATABLE BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583547
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING THE SPEED OF A BICYCLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577993
REDUCED PROFILE PISTON ADJUSTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570257
BRAKING SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570370
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 742 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month